Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Veterinary Service

Miss Fookes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ask the welfare division of the State Veterinary Service to publish a quarterly account of its activities.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): The annual report of the Chief Veterinary Officer already describes the animal welfare activities of the State Veterinary Service. We doubt whether the expense involved in producing more frequent reports would be justified.

Miss Fookes: In that case, will the Parliamentary Secretary undertake to give in the annual report the precise number of visits undertaken on a routine basis to ensure the welfare of animals in various establishments?

Mr. Strang: We make specific visits to farms to investigate the welfare of the livestock. In addition, our veterinary staff look into the welfare problems of farms when visiting them for other reasons. We keep a record of specific visits. I shall give consideration to the hon. Lady's request.

Potato Marketing

Mr. Wiggin: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects proposals for the future of potato marketing to be agreed.

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Food when he will next meet the Chairman of the Potato Marketing Board.

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of the Potato Marketing Board.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on 19th January—[Vol. 942, c. 654]—I am in frequent touch with the Chairman of the Potato Marketing Board but have no meeting arranged at present.
The long-term future of the Board depends on whether it can play a constructive role within the EEC regime for potatoes curently under discussion. In the meantime, appropriate arrangements for the 1978 crop are being considered with the interests concerned and will be announced as soon as possible.

Mr. Wiggin: The Government have had five years' notice that this would become a matter of importance on 1st January 1978. When may we expect something more concrete to come out of the discussions? When are producers likely to have a firm assurance of a price guarantee of a similar kind for the coming growing season?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman will realise that although the date of the ending of transition and harmonisation was known some time in advance, many other areas required discussion as well. Getting agreement with all the member countries concerned is not always easy. In the interests of the trade, we have said that the 1977 guarantee will be honoured. We are now discussing with the industry proposals for a new regime, and we shall be announcing arrangements for the 1978 crop as soon as possible.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Regarding the 1977 guarantee, I understand that the Ministry and the Potato Marketing Board have already taken off the market about seven times the estimated surplus, yet the average price remains about £36 a tonne, which is £10 below the guaranteed price. When is a guarantee not a guarantee? What has gone wrong? Is anyone evading the import ban?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman will know that on various occasions we have


given assurances that the guaranteed price of £45·77 per tonne will be fulfilled for the year as a whole. We have engaged in a buying-in programme which is aimed at stabilising the market.

Mr. Brotherton: Does the Minister agree that we should work towards self-sufficiency in potatoes with a small surplus for export? Does he also agree that the Potato Marketing Board, or a similar organisation, offers the best chance of achieving that end?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman will know that discussions on these matters have been going on with the Community for some time. My right hon. Friend has on a number of occasions stressed the urgency of the situation in order that the industry should be aware of it. We want to ensure that the producer has the confidence to produce. We want as far as possible to guarantee reasonable prices, but we have to take account of other countries which supply us with some of their crop from time to time.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does the Minister agree that it is very unlikely that any of these questions would have been necessary if Conservative Members had not voted so enthusiastically to take us into the Common Market?

Mr. Bishop: My right hon. Friend is quite right on that point. He will know that getting agreement with the other members of the Community is not always an easy matter. At the same time, it is urgent that we should have some idea of the future of the regime and the kind of regime that we want for our industry, so that the producers can go ahead for the coming season.

Mr. Jopling: Will the Minister of State be good enough to take this opportunity to put on record that he agrees with our view that if the powers of the Potato Marketing Board were to disappear the housewives of this country would be much more susceptible to shortages and high prices?

Mr. Bishop: I am glad that the hon. Member agrees with our point of view that we want a regime that will take into account the factors that I have mentioned. The present system has up to now served us well and we want to ensure that an agreement is reached at the earliest possible time.

Mr. Ford: When my hon. Friend next meets the Chairman of the Potato Marketing Board will he ask him to explain why he is releasing potatoes at £30 a tonne to processing organisations taking 10,000 tonnes a year or more, thus placing at a disadvantage the smaller organisations, who are paying up to £46 a tonne?

Mr. Bishop: The basic reason for the buying-in programme is to take surplus off the market and stabilise prices. Some of the buying-in programme assists the industry in relation to stock feed. We have had representations from the potato processors to help them in the present situation. I think that there has been a general welcome for the policy, which means that they receive some concessions in helping them in the problem that they face at present.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Is it possible at this late hour to give back to our marketing boards the statutory powers?

Mr. Bishop: The powers that any boards will have in the future will depend upon the kind of regime and policy on which we manage to get agreement in the Community.

Calves (Exports)

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many live calves were exported from the United Kingdom in the month of January 1978; and to which countries they went.

Mr. Strang: The number of calves examined by Ministry veterinary officers and passed fit for export overseas during the four weeks from 1st to 28th January was 30,740. These animals all went to France, Italy. Belgium or Holland and were intended for further rearing.

Mr. Ross: I thank the Minister for that reply. Do those figures not cause concern to the Minister, not only on welfare grounds but in relation to the future of our home meat production? Does the Minister have to wait for the report from the committee that he has set up before taking action? I should like to see a ban placed on those exports.

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that this is a complicated issue, as many calves are slaughtered in this country every year. Even last year, when


many calves were exported, about 500,000 were slaughtered. One has to consider whether it is better that the calves should be slaughtered or that some should be exported, in proper conditions of transport, for further rearing on the Continent.

Mr. Costain: In the course of collecting those statistics, can the Minister give any indication of the condition in which those calves are shipped? Does he realise that there is much concern, particularly in areas such as mine, where they are shipped under gale conditions? Does the veterinary service have any say about the sea conditions under which the ships are allowed to sail? There is a great deal of confusion about it.

Mr. Strang: I agree that there is a very great deal of concern on this issue. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend set up the present inquiry.

Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend be more open about the matter with the Liberals—I know that the Government have to consult these people about all those various matters—and tell them the truth? The fact is that the Common Market, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) supports, along with his colleagues, prevents us from carrying out the measures that he would like to see.

Mr. Strang: Certainly my hon. Friend has a point, in that there are EEC implications in this area. These will be brought out in the report that we are having prepared on the subject.

Mr. Wm. Ross: Did the hon. Gentleman note that the original Question referred to the export of calves from the United Kingdom rather than from Great Britain? Did he take into account in his reply the number of calves exported from Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and from thence to elsewhere?

Mr. Strang: No. The hon. Gentleman has raised a very fair point. In general, the concern expressed about the export of food animals relates to exports to Common Market countries other than the Irish Republic.

Milk (Producer-Retailers)

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Food how many producer-retailers of liquid milk there are in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Strang: As at March 1977, there were 3,388 producer-retailers in England, 672 in Wales, 420 in Scotland and 10 in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Winterton: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply and for those figures. However, will he indicate to the House his right hon. Friend's view on the proposals that have come from the Commission for the future of the Milk Marketing Board, which in this country is so vital to the consumer and the producer? Does he not think that it is appalling that the future of the Board should be left in this position, so late in the day?

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that that appalling state of affairs must be laid at the door of his party rather than at the door of this Government. While we regard the proposals put forward by the Commission for the future of the Board as a satisfactory basis for negotiation, we share the industry's concern that they are in need of significant improvement.

Mr. Noble: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a large concentration of producer-retailers in my constituency and that they are very anxious about the present situation? They have small herds and small holdings. What guarantee will he give to them that their present producer-retailer type of trade will be allowed to continue in the future?

Mr. Strang: I know that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned, on behalf of his constituents, about the proposed ban on the sale of untreated milk. There is a very high proportion of producer-retailers in the Yorkshire-Lancashire area. The Government are giving consideration to this issue and will be having consultations with the interested parties in the very near future.

Mr. Boscawen: Is the Minister aware of the serious apprehension amongst dairy farmers in Somerset that his right hon. Friend will sell out to Brussels over the producer-retailer issue for liquid milk sales and that the Milk Marketing Board will be driven the same way as the old Egg Board?

Mr. Strang: Bearing in mind that the Conservative Front Bench's main criticism of my right hon. Friend has been that he has been intransigent in Brussels, it is a bit rich for the hon. Member to suggest that my right hon. Friend, of all people, is likely to sell out the national interest in this matter.

European Community

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans next to meet the EEC Commissioner for Agriculture.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): I have frequent meetings with the EEC Commissioner for Agriculture.

Mr. Watkinson: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Commissioner will he discuss with him the calculation of the unit of account itself? Does he agree that it is time that we considered whether the unit of account should be geared to the "snake" currencies, as this in itself produces higher prices?

Mr. Silkin: If I were to say that to the Commissioner he might get a bit bored, because I have been saying it to the Council on a number of occasions. The fact is that since the representative rates of the United Kingdom, France and Italy are very near to one another and they account for about two-thirds of the population and about two-thirds of the agricultural produce of the Community, it would be a much more sensible basis to align prices with the lowest price of those three rather than with the price of the minority of one-third, or whatever it is, that is represented by the "snake" currencies.

Mr. Peter Mills: Is the Minister aware that I could give him a list of things that he ought to discuss with the Commissioner? Will he concentrate his mind on dealing with the Anglo-French problem, which is serious, particularly for South-West producers? Will he try to encourage the Commissioner to work on this problem and open up the market again?

Mr. Silkin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will send me his list. I promise him that I shall study it carefully. With regard to what I take to be at the top

of the list, the question of the levy on British sheepmeat going into France and the discrimination in favour of the Irish Republic, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have asked the Commissioner to take action on this and he has done so. He has asked the French Government for a reasoned opinion, which I believe they have to supply by the end of this month.

Mr. Ioan Evans: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Commissioner will he resist the demand for the abolition of the Milk Marketing Board? Does he realise that the system we have in this country has operated to the benefit of the consumer and the producer of milk? Does he further agree that we should resist the Continental system of purchasing milk in shops and should continue with the door-to-door sales system which we have had for many years?

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I view with considerable alarm, as I think the whole House does, the decrease in the door-to-door sale of milk throughout the Community. I believe that only the Irish Republic and ourselves are left with this system. The experience in the Netherlands was that the whole system went in a very short time. As a result of our efforts over the past year, the Commissioner has produced proposals. I do not believe that in detail they are as good as I would like them to be, but in general terms I think he recognises that in a Community overflowing with milk, if not honey, a strong liquid milk market is an important means of reducing a surplus.

Mr. Farr: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Commissioner will he discuss with him the critical situation in which United Kingdom cattle finishers find themselves at the moment? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they are faced with a situation in which costs have escalated in the past three years, while the last modest adjustment of the green pound, though welcome, has in no way compensated for stock costs?

Mr. Silkin: I am quoting from memory, but I believe that as a result of the devaluation and the general increase in the target price, prices will be about 17 per cent. up in March as compared with last year. This should be more than sufficient to meet the difficulties.

Lime

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to reintroduce the lime subsidy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Strang: My right hon. Friend has no plans to add to the assistance for liming currently available under capital grant schemes. Liming is a good investment for farmers, and my Department's Agricultural Development and Advisory Service regularly reminds farmers of the need for liming and helps them to plan appropriate programmes.

Mr. Howells: Does the Minister agree that if we are to increase production from the land the sooner we reintroduce the lime subsidy the better? Can he clarify the position about Europe? Are his counterparts in Europe willing to allow us to reintroduce the lime subsidy?

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman is right to argue that it is an essential part of good soil husbandry that there be regular liming. The issue is whether it is necessary to pay a subsidy, in addition to those which we pay for reseeding and the basic upgrading of grassland, to obtain this adequate level of liming.

Mr. Watt: Since this lime subsidy ran for 40 years, from 1936 to 1976, and since it never cost the Exchequer more than £6 million per annum, may I ask the Minister seriously to reconsider asking the Treasury for this money, which I can assure him would be extremely well spent?

Mr. Strang: I have to acknowledge that the original reason for removing the lime subsidy was fiscal rather than agricultural. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, that was one of the decisions taken in the context of the limitation of public expenditure entered into as part of the negotiations with the IMF. We recognise the importance of liming and keep a close watch on its level. It is too early to say yet what impact the removal of the subsidy has had on the rate of liming.

Republic of Ireland (Fisheries Minister)

Mr. Jasper More: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

when he next expects to meet the Irish Fisheries Minister.

Mr. John Silkin: I have no formal plans to do so at present, but I meet him frequently.

Mr. More: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Atlantic salmon is in serious danger of extinction? Will he take an early opportunity to meet the Irish Fisheries Minister with a view to producing a scheme to cover the Irish Republic, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England as well as other countries concerned, with the object of stopping the terrible drift-netting on our shores, estuaries, seas and oceans, since this is doing dreadful damage to this valuable species?

Mr. Silkin: All questions of conservation are matters of importance, not just to the United Kingdom but to the whole Community. There is a special interest, obviously, between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, because of the Atlantic Ocean. The best form of conservation is for the coastal State to be able to do the conservation work in the waters around its shores. That seems to be the way in which this matter should be dealt with, not only in the case of this fish but in the case of all fish that swim around our waters or Irish waters.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend tell the Irish Fisheries Minister, when dealing with the question of the common fisheries policy, that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who negotiated our entry into the Common Market in 1972–73, made a remarkable statement to The Times on St. Valentine's Day about launching a campaign some time next week to smash the Common Market and to form a merger between all the countries of the Market and the EFTA countries? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Tories and Liberals whom we have heard today on these matters, who dragged Britain into the Common Market against our best advice, are now, along with the right hon. and learned Member, presenting a sorry spectacle?

Mr. Silkin: I have so much to read that I find it difficult to keep up with the reports of what is said by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the denials that inevitably


follow the reports. I do detect a slight difference of opinion, compared with the speeches that we heard some years ago from the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his fight on behalf of fishermen, which might have been unnecessary if some of his critics today had done their duty, is meeting with admiration and support from fishermen generally? May I ask him not to be put off by the criticism made yesterday, suggesting that the United Kingdom was behaving like a spoilt child, since most children react violently—in a phrase which he might already know of—when their piggy bank has been rifled?

Mr. Silkin: I could not have put it better myself. If ever there was a case when there was total and complete justice in the views which I think everyone in the House now shares, this is it. We intend to keep it that way.

Mr. Ralph Howell: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets his counterpart, the Irish Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, will he ask him to confide the secret of his success? Does he realise that the Irish have almost complete parity between the Irish green pound and the pound sterling while the right hon. Gentleman was unable to get the modest realignment asked for by this House?

Mr. Silkin: When I next meet the Irish Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries I shall comment upon his split personality. There are separate Ministers for agriculture and for fisheries. The hon. Gentleman refers to Ireland and parity. That is a long, interesting and detailed story. The fact remains that this House voted for a 7½ per cent. devaluation. It did not vote an immediate across-the-board 7½ per cent. devaluation because, as I well recall, the whole argument was about the livestock sector.
I direct the hon. Gentleman's mind to a speech made just a few days ago by Mr. Keen, the Editor of the British Farmer and Stockbreeder, in which he said that to go to a full devaluation of the green pound—that is the Irish parity basis or anywhere near it—would be totally damaging to agriculture as well as to the British consumer.

Mr. Peyton: May I, for the sake of accuracy, ask the right hon. Gentleman to remind himself of the terms of the motion which was discussed in the House? It was for a 7½ per cent. devaluation of the green pound forthwith.

Mr. Silkin: That is perfectly correct. But it has always been the case—it was the case with the Italian green lira, which came up at the same time as the green pound—that certain parts of the devaluation are staggered. Sometimes it is done at the opening of the marketing year, and sometimes it is done for all commodities at once, but usually it is staggered. What has happened in this case is that it has been staggered.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as I can remember, he raised no objection at the price fixing last year when I obtained a 3 per cent. devaluation of the green pound. For dairy products, 50 per cent. came in last September, and 50 per cent. in April.

Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the point of our anxiety is that on this occasion the House of Commons voted specifically for a devaluation of the green pound by 7½ per cent. forthwith, and that in an extraordinary way his colleagues on the Council denied this country what they seem to have given automatically in every other case?

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman just does not seem to appreciate the point. Nor does he seem to have read his own motion, or the Liberal Party's Early-Day Motion, or, as far as I remember, the Scottish National Party's motion, all of which drew attention to the livestock sector. His allies on that occasion were concerned to protect livestock. They did not want to protect the cereals producers. A 7½ per cent. devaluation right across the board would have undone all the good that was done in giving a devaluation to the livestock producers.

Green Pound

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what would be the estimated effect on the retail price index of a complete devaluation of the green pound, assuming the devaluation were spread over two years.

Mr. John Silkin: I estimate that if the change were made now there would be an increase in retail prices of the order of 1 per cent. to 1½ per cent. or 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. on the food price index, over and above the effects of the recent green pound settlement.

Mr. Hamilton: My right hon. Friend no doubt agrees that that is a convenient stick with which to beat the Opposition, but how far does he agree that a gradual devaluation over a period of time is probably both politically and economically inevitable? May I ask whether, in the figures that he quoted, he has taken account of the likely effect of such devaluation on our own increased home production in line with our White Paper policy?

Mr. Silkin: Very much so. Indeed, a moment ago my hon. Friend may have heard me quote from the speech of the Editor of the British Farmer and Stockbreeder, in which he said that it would hurt agriculture if he were to devalue very speedily.
The fact remains—I give this to my hon. Friend—that it may well be that, with common prices the way they are, the only way in which one can ensure a proper basis of remuneration for the producer and look after the consumer is by using the green pound as a method of fine control. I accept that. I have always accepted that, and I have said that I would devalue as and when the national interest demanded, and not on any other occasion.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that although she may have little understanding of the green pound, and be in good company in so doing, that most pragmatic of all our constituents, the British housewife, has legitimate cause for concern when she reads in the newspapers this morning that interventionist pricing is producing beef, butter and barley mountains in this country? Has the right hon. Gentleman any explanation to offer?

Mr. Silkin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. May I say "Welcome to the club"? A number of us have for years been attacking the intervention system. Having said that—perhaps it is a reasonable comment on the way in which the CAP is being operated at the moment—the fact remains that the butter hill in

the United Kingdom represents 4 per cent. of the Community's butter storage, while that in the Federal Republic of Germany, with its prices so much higher than ours, represents 60 per cent. The hon. Gentleman can draw the moral.

Mr. Jay: Has my right hon. Friend also noticed the statement in the Commission's agricultural report for 1977 that EEC prices of wheat, barley and maize are now more than double the world prices which we would have to pay if we were not members of the EEC?

Mr. Silkin: That is an argument that we have had in the past, and no doubt it will go on for some time. The fact remains—I agree with the implications of what my right hon. Friend is saying—that the right way to attack the structural surplus is at the end price. That must be done, and that is what the Government are trying to do.

Mr. Peyton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present level of German butter imports into this country would never have been achieved without MCAs, and that they would not have been there if the green pound—real pound discrepancy had been ironed out?

Mr. Silkin: That is probably true, but we are a deficiency country in butter. We can manufacture a good deal more of our own, and that we must do. I agree with that, but I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, because I suspect that very soon he will be in a minority of one on this matter, that a mood is coming about, and has been seen clearly during the past few weeks, which has looked at the MCA discrepancy and found the right basis on which to proceed. It is to get a common price level which really reflects what the Community ought to be paying, and not the basis under which it operates at the moment, which is the basis of the "snake" currency.

Mr. Peyton: On the question of MCAs, will the right hon. Gentleman register the fact that we on the Opposition side of the House are profoundly disappointed with the puny efforts of the Commission in thinking out this problem?

Mr. Silkin: This is one of the rare occasions on which I find myself in total agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. He will no doubt remember that last


September the Commission promised to look into the whole question. It has taken five months, which, as I pointed out to the Commissioner, has given us for the first time the actual gestation period for the mountain to produce a mouse.

European Community Prices Review

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the proposals in the 1978 EEC prices review.

Mr. John Silkin: I agree with the general emphasis on the need for price restraint but I have doubts about a number of points of detail and I am not convinced of the need for any increases for products in structural surplus.

Mr. Spence: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the staged devaluation of the green pound in itself is leading to an increase in imports, particularly of dairy products and butter? Without wishing to join the club, or of being accused of doing so, may I ask whether he agrees that this is detrimental to the British dairy industry, and whether he can do something about it?

Mr. Silkin: I think that in the short term it is bound to lead to an increase, just as, for example, the ending of the butter subsidy might have done, and the fact that the butter subsidy is progressively to decline. In the general run, however, there is no doubt that when the green pound takes effect it will immediately be of assistance to the livestock producers, and particularly to the dairy farmers.

Mr. Gould: Does my right hon. Friend agree that green rates were introduced by the French and Germans long before we became members of the Common Market, that every other member country has a green rate, and that it is highly doubtful whether the CAP can survive without green currencies?

Mr. Silkin: I think it is right to say that the only member of the Nine that has no green rate is Denmark. I think it is also right to say—I hope that I am not traducing anybody—that the only enthusiastic supporters of the automatic seven-year elimination of the representative rates are the Danes. I detected a considerable lack of enthusiasm amongst my colleagues in the Community once

they were put face to face with the real possibility of the green rates being phased out.

Mr. Marten: What representations is the Minister making to the Germans to revalue the green mark? As a member of his club, may I suggest that perhaps the Germans might be, in the hackneyed words of the Opposition Benches, "dragging their feet" on that issue?

Mr. Silkin: It is interesting to note that if one adopted the suggestion of one of my hon. Friends a moment ago, of one European unit of account equalling one agricultural unit of account, the Germans would be far and away furthest from the norm, far above us or any other country. I have pointed out in the Council that it is the higher rate of common prices dictated by the "snake" that is really causing all the structural difficulties.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say when the prices review negotiations will be finalised this year?

Mr. Silkin: I cannot say when they will be finalised, but I think that they will start to be finalised round about the first week in April. I do not want to upset the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that price negotiations have been known to go on until June.

Pigmeat (Monetary Compensatory Amounts)

Mr. Banks: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current state of negotiations in the Council of Ministers with regard to the recalculation of the basis of pigmeat monetary compensation amounts.

Mr. Bishop: My right hon. Friend has taken every opportunity to press in the Council for a change in the calculation and has been encouraged by the support of the French and Italian Ministers. But the opposition remains. The Commission's report on its study of the distorting effects of the system of monetary compensatory amounts was submitted to the Council this week and provides a further opportunity to press our case. The issue is likely to be one that will be considered in the CAP price-fixing negotiations.

Mr. Banks: Has the right hon. Gentleman emphasised that the Danish and


Dutch share of our market in tinned ham has reached an unacceptable level? Is he fully aware of the severe difficulties of the pigmeat processing industry? Is it not the case that his Government's attitude towards the EEC has severely hampered the chances of altering the calculation for MCAs to make it similar to that of the poultrymeat and egg industries?

Mr. Bishop: I should have thought that my right hon. Friend's attitude to the Community would be welcomed by all who care about our own industry. It is true that the pig industry in particular has been subject to these problems, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the recent 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound has cut MCAs on Danish bacon imports by £44 a tonne, or 18 per cent. The other 2½ per cent. that will follow will mean altogether a rise of £66 a tonne, or a 28 per cent. variation. However, my right hon. Friend is still pressing for a recalculation of the MCAs.

Mr. Jopling: Whilst I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that calculation of the pigmeat MCAs is extremely unfair, may I ask whether he read the report in the Financial Times this morning that the Commission's study of the chaos in the British pigmeat industry lays the blame almost entirely on this Government's refusal to devalue the green pound and their total incompetence in controlling inflation in this country?

Mr. Bishop: Those two statements are politically unrealistic. My right hon. Friend has pressed consistently since October 1976, with the 8 per cent. change, the revaluation of the green pound last year and the £17 million subsidy to the industry, which had to be stopped when the Community intervened. He has been pressing since. The hon. Gentleman will realise that farming has made its contribution to combating inflation, but the industry benefits from the fact that inflation has come down from the 30 per cent. of a few years ago to near-single figures today.

Mr. Watt: Rather than continue fiddling with MCAs and the green pound, would not the Minister do better to read today's Press reports that the Dutch Labour Party is reconsidering its faith in the Common Market? In view of the permanent damage done to our pigmeat

industry, the permanent damage done by the common fisheries policy to British fishing interests, and the regulations coming out of Brussels which are damaging our livestock hauliers' livelihood, will the right hon. Gentleman now persuade his own party to reconsider its faith in the Common Market and come out of the whole blooming jing-a-ring?

Mr. Bishop: I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that some of the propositions that he has just put may be longer-term ones. United Kingdom agriculture cannot wait for longer-term proposals. My right hon. Friend is pressing very hard to ensure urgent aid for the industries and the aspects of agriculture that are in dire need of help at present, especially the pig industry.

Milk Marketing Board

Mr. Spearing: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning the opting-out provision now being proposed as part of a new constitution of the Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. John Silkin: The European Commission's proposals on the milk marketing boards would enable individual producers with up to 150 milking cows to opt out of a board scheme and retail their milk directly to the final consumer. This is one of the areas where I shall be seeking changes when the proposals come before the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Spearing: Is it not a fact that the lack of an opting-out clause in the original scheme was the reason for its success? When are the results of the poll likely to be available?

Mr. Silkin: This is a very dangerous situation. There are many difficulties if one exempts producer-retailers with up to 150 cows. I reckon that there are 4,000 of them in the country. The whole question is now intimately bound up with the price negotiations, and we shall simply have to see what can be done about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 16th February.

Mr. Walter Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it about a Question?

Mr. Johnson: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that there are 15 Questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asking him to list his official engagements for 16th February. Surely that is ludicrous. May I ask you to discuss the matter with those concerned?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter is taking up the time for Prime Minister's Questions. I do not decide what Questions hon. Members put down.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
May I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) that the reply will be the same to all the other 15 Questions?

Mr. Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend take time off to consider the tempory employment subsidy and the pressure being put on us by the Common Market? Will he tell the EEC that any proposal to vet each application is out, and that we want to preserve just as many jobs under any other scheme? Indeed, we want to continue the present scheme. If the EEC wants to take us to court, it will incur the wrath of the British people.

The Prime Minister: I notice that I am always being enjoined to take time off. I only wish that I could sometimes. [Interruption.] I am open to offers.

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman should try the Bank of Wales or Julian Hodge.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has come alive again, has he?
As for the temporary employment subsidy, I am very glad to see that the European trade unions made a concerted protest to the Commission about these matters. Clearly, conditions that were devised at a time of pretty well world full employment, in the 1950s and 1960s, are not appropriate for the situation in which we and the rest of the world find ourselves today. I am sure that the Commission

will take that matter into account, as Ministers certainly will.

Mr. Baker: In view of the difficulties that the Government are having in getting their legislation through the House in the way in which it was proposed to the House, may I make a helpful suggestion to the Prime Minister? Could he find time later this afternoon to appoint the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) as his Chief Whip?

The Prime Minister: I could think of many things to do with my hon. Friend. I understand that he has recently secured election in a ballot for the European Assembly.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I bet it was rigged.

The Prime Minister: I agree that in this lively and self-assertive Parliament it is very difficult for Governments to get their legislation through. I do not know whether the character of Parliament is changing. If so, perhaps we had better move to a presidential system, in which case I might be a candidate.

Mr. Radice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that with over 16 million unemployed in the OECD countries, the results of last May's Downing Street conference have proved rather disappointing? Will he remind the German and Japanese Governments of their promises then to expand their economies and reduce their balance of payments surpluses?

The Prime Minister: The forecast for 1978 of growth in the major European countries, such as Germany and France, as well as in some of the other countries which were represented at the Summit, is not living up to the expectations that those Governments then had. This is having a serious impact on employment generally and on the levels of world trade.
I am certainly ready to join in further discussions on this matter, but we have to find a way of reconciling the clear and legitimate different objectives of Governments. One Government are concerned that inflation should in no circumstances occur in their own country. It is a perfectly legitimate objective. Another Government say "We must have faster growth." What we have to try to do as a group of nations is to synthesise the


common objectives and get an agreed policy. There is no agreed policy now. I am bound to say, as I said yesterday, that unless the leading world nations agree on some policies for 1978, the figure of 16 million unemployed in the OECD will rise.

Mr. William Clark: I appreciate that the Prime Minister is extremely busy today, but will he try to find time later on to give instructions for the publication in the Official Report of the report from Mr. Speaker on Northern Ireland representation?

The Prime Minister: There is a usual formula under which the Leader of the Opposition tables a Question about these matters and I give the usual reply. I am sure that that will be followed on this occasion.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Prime Minister what are his official engagements for 16th February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle).

Mr. Canavan: At the Cabinet meeting, did my right hon. Friend make a statement about the Government's devolution proposals? Despite the fact that the enemies of the Scottish Assembly decided last night that their case was so weak that they had to give themselves a few goals start in the referendum campaign, does he agree that we can still win at the end of the day if we proceed with the Scotland Bill and hold the referendum before the next General Election?

The Prime Minister: I do not discuss the deliberations of the Cabinet. I usually wait to read them in the newspapers at the weekend. I am sure that the Lord President will have a very interesting announcement to make in due course concerning the business for next week. Let me say to my hon. Friend that of course we can win on this matter. There is no doubt about it. I believe that everyone will want to give the Scottish people the opportunity of deciding this issue for themselves.

Mr. Gow: Will the Prime Minister take time today to explain to the country why it is that tomorrow at noon the Sec-

retary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State of that Department are holding a Press conference at the Labour Hall. 400 High Road, Ilford? Will he tell the House why that Press conference is not being held in London? Will he confirm that there will be no cost to public funds of exporting these Ministers to Ilford?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether everyone heard the address properly, but it is 400 High Road, Ilford. [HON. MEMBERS: "What time?"] I did not hear the time, but no doubt we can find that out. I suppose that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection will have a communication of public importance to state. Where better to state it than in the heart of an area like Ilford, which has strongly and consistently supported the Labour Government and will go on doing so?

Oral Answers to Questions — TUC

Mr. Gould: asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the Trades Union Congress.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) on 2nd February.

Mr. Gould: Will my right hon. Friend again congratulate the TUC on the part that the trade unions have played in the substantial and continuing fall in the rate of inflation? Will he also ensure that they are properly rewarded for their efforts with an exchange rate policy which does not fritter away North Sea oil revenues in a flood of manufactured imports?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I have often paid tribute to the work of the trade unions in overcoming inflation. The exchange rate policy is in some ways a reflection of the international monetary system. As I said recently, it is hardly worth dignifying it at the moment with the word "system".
I assure my hon. Friend that it is more difficult to control exchange rates, either upwards or downwards, than he sometimes believes. What is quite true


is that a stable exchange rate is undoubtedly best for our exporters, and some of them are meeting a certain amount of difficulty as a result of the appreciation of the pound and its strength.

Mrs. Bain: In his discussions with trade union representatives, will the Prime Minister deliberate on the fact that the Trades Union Congress in Scotland is today extremely angry about the unfair and iniquitous decision taken by the House last night on the Scotland Bill? Bearing in mind that we are now almost at the first anniversary of the collapse of the Scotland and Wales Bill, will the Government now make it an issue of confidence that the Scotland Bill is passed at its Third Reading in this House? Any failure to make this an issue of confidence will guarantee that the people in Scotland will put the blame fairly and squarely on the meek and undetermined stance taken by the Government.

The Prime Minister: The House of Commons took decisions last night, and although I am sure that the Scottish TUC, like other bodies, has views about them, it is the House of Commons that reaches a conclusion. Those decisions must be accepted by everybody. I hope that it will make the hon. Lady work harder in order to make certain that we get the majority that is required in the referendum to ensure that devolution goes through. That is the best line that we can adopt. As for votes of confidence, I resist the blandishments of the hon. Lady. I shall indicate to the House whenever there is a vote of confidence, and then she can have full pleasure in voting for us.

Mr. Buchan: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will take time to look at the election manifesto of the Scottish National Party for 1974, in which he will discover that it not only invented the referendum idea but also invented the idea of a 40 per cent. vote. In addition, it extended the idea to make it applicable for voting in the Assembly.

The Prime Minister: I am very interested in this information and will, of course, have it checked immediately—not that I am doubting my hon. Friend's word. I suggest to the House, now that we have got so far in this matter and now that it is quite clear that the people of

Scotland themselves will decide, that it really would be open to the gravest misunderstanding if the House were to deny them that opportunity next Wednesday.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be a mistake to indulge in too much hysteria about last night's Division? Unfortunate though that decision was, is it not the case that at the end of the day, whether that motion was carried or not, the final say rests with the House of Commons? Is it not also the case that the referendum was always, and remains, consultative?

The Prime Minister: That is true. I am not sure in which direction the hysteria lies. I hope that I am not laying myself open to any charge of hysteria. I certainly do not feel that way. The referendum is, of course, advisory. On the other hand, I have always assumed, as a matter of common sense, that a clear decision by the people one way or the other would have very great influence in the House of Commons. I suggest to the House that our real task next Wednesday, having got so far after so many years, is to give the Scottish people the chance of declaring on this matter.

Mr. Hardy: In considering trade union and industrial matters this morning, did my right hon. Friend notice the news from the National Coal Board about improved coal production? If so, did that not lead him to reflect on the comparison between the position now and that which existed four years ago, when the right hon. Lady and her colleagues were last in office?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I read on the tapes, just before I came in here, that productivity has gone up very much during the last few weeks as a result of the arrangements that have been entered into. That is a very good start and I hope that it will be continued, because we need all the coal we can get.

Sir David Renton: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC, will he assure it that our nationalised shipbuilding industry and our taxpayers' money will be used to meet the needs of the Royal Navy in future before supplying ships to Communist countries?

The Prime Minister: I do not understand the question, because there is no circumstance in which an order for a


Royal Naval ship has been held up because of our exports. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows of one, perhaps he will let me know immediately.

RHODESIA

Mr. Thorpe: (By Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government intend to make to the agreement in principle arrived at internally in Rhodesia.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): It is too early to make a considered judgment as to the acceptability to the people of Rhodesia as a whole of the arrangements announced yesterday in Salisbury. It is the people who will live in a future Zimbabwe who should determine their own future.
It seems that there are crucial issues yet to be resolved, including the composition of the transitional Government and their powers; the composition of the security forces; and the extent to which other nationalist parties will be involved in the transition and in fair and free elections on the basis of universal suffrage.
We shall continue, as we have done from the start of the Anglo-United States initiative, to work with all parties, inside and outside the country, to promote an overall settlement compatible with the principles endorsed by this House and to work for the cessation of all violence.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is highly desirable that this Government should not pass judgment one way or the other until we have far greater details upon which to pass judgment? May I ask him two questions? First, would he none the less agree that this marks a significant move towards the achievement of majority rule which the House should certainly welcome? Second, is he yet in a position to say whether in his view this statement accords with the six principles laid down by Lord Home and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).

Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He is quite right. It would be most unwise to make judgments until we have far greater detail. As I

have said, the essential judgment will be made by the people of Rhodesia themselves. That is compatible with the fifth principle which has been endorsed by this House. We stand by all six of the principles, although when it looks at them I think the House will see that there has been progress and that to some extent the initial four principles have been superseded. But the sixth principle, with regard to protecting minority rights, is extremely important.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to say whether this was a significant move towards majority rule. I believe that it is, and I believe that it will be welcomed.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Can there be any doubt that Mr. Smith would not have come this far if it had not been as a result of pressure both from sanctions and the armed struggle? I recognise that this is a major development, but can it also be doubted that this matter must be decided by the people of Zimbabwe as a whole? The only issue now is whether there can be an accurate reflection of what the opinion of Zimbabwe as a whole will be unless there is a referendum which has some kind of outside monitoring.

Dr. Owen: I think my hon. Friend is quite right—that a number of pressures have brought off these events. But the fact that these pressures were necessary is something that we have grown to recognise. Still, it has produced very important movements.
With regard to how the people of Zimbabwe as a whole will express their view on what eventually emerges from the discussions that still have to take place, no decision has been taken and, to some extent, it is up to them. But I think they will have to bear in mind that it is important for this House that such a test of opinion is seen to be fair and objective. A referendum would be one way of doing it, or, alternatively, an election based on universal suffrage.

Mr. Maudling: Has the Foreign Secretary any reason to doubt that the men concerned in this agreement—Mr. Smith, Bishop Muzorewa, the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole and Mr. Chikerema—between them represent the great majority of all races in Rhodesia? As this is the most hopeful thing that has happened in


Rhodesia for years, why in the name of Heaven does not the right hon. Gentleman welcome it?

Dr. Owen: If the right hon. Gentleman heard the end of my reply to the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) he will know that I did welcome it as "significant". But the right hon. Gentleman, who has studied these matters and knows how complicated they are, knows perfectly well that if we were able to achieve a cessation of the violence it would be far easier to have a proper test of opinion in Rhodesia and far easier for an independent Government of Zimbabwe to live in peace. Therefore, all parties will have to turn their minds to how we can get a better measure of agreement than has so far emerged from Salisbury.
It is no use ignoring the fact that outside the country there are considerable forces which, if not given a proper opportunity, will continue the armed struggle. It is our task to try to ensure that these people outside the country have sufficient confidence in the arrangements that are made to come back and participate in fair and free elections.

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that a proposed Assembly constituted along racial lines in which 3 per cent. of the populace has an exclusive right to 28 per cent. of the seats is unlikely to commend itself to international opinion? Moreover, that would be a most fragile base for peace and political stability in Zimbabwe.

Dr. Owen: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. International opinion is important, but we have to recognise that there is a minority whose rights also have to be protected.
It was this Government who proposed specially elected Members. The proportion of specially elected Members that has been proposed in Salisbury is more than we have proposed in our deliberations. I have always said that if there is some agreement among all the nationalist parties on the confidence-building measures that are necessary for the future stability of Zimbabwe, it is not for us in this House to hold back on this. The question is how they are elected. We still need to know more details about this, and

Bishop Muzorewa had strong views on this matter as recently as Sunday.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: In his reply to the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), the Foreign Secretary recognised that progress had been made in these talks in Rhodesia. Will he now place on record his unqualified approval of the breakthrough which has taken place, and will he also urge the United States Ambassador to the United Nations to be far more cautious—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Dr. Owen: Progress has been made, and I think that is important. I welcome progress of all kinds. If some Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who shouts constantly, had devoted as much attention to this issue as I have done, they would know that, hour after hour in important and difficult negotiations, I have stood up for freedom, for fair and free elections, for democratic choice and for an agreement if acceptable to the people as a whole—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Twenty five per cent.—

Dr. Owen: As soon as Opposition Members realise that, if we are to bring about peace in Rhodesia, it will be necessary for people to talk to those who are fighting on both sides, the better.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend agree with me—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The permanent guerrilla.

Mr. Flannery: Be quiet and let me speak. Will my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the noise coming from that motley crew on the Opposition Benches, the sickening unanimity of the Tory Party in welcoming this agreement is itself proof that a racialist deal has been done in Zimbabwe? Will he agree, further, that any arrangement in that sad country which does not take into account the view point of the Patriotic Front—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Terrorists.

Mr. Flannery: —is bound to be purely temporary and cannot be conducive to one man, one vote democracy without racialist lines, as we know it?

Dr. Owen: Over the 12 years that this unhappy situation has confronted this House there has been a fair measure of agreement in the House as a whole. There has been agreement on the basis of the six principles which most of us have been trying to uphold through these difficult negotiations. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) who, despite a great deal of understandable pressure on him, has also attempted to keep this issue as far as possible one on which there is some measure of agreement.
I think that it would be regrettable if at this important and delicate stage we were to subject the whole complexity of this issue to bitter partisan disputes. For my part, I shall resist that. However, my hon. Friend is right. Those people who are fighting this war have the right to be heard and the right if possible to come back into Rhodesia and participate in fair and free elections.

Mr. John Davies: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that what worries and irritates the Opposition is what appears to be such a grudging attitude of mind to what has happened? It seems that there should be something much more positive coming from the Government. It is not good enough for the Government simply to take a passive view of the situation as it unfolds in Salisbury. There is much of a positive kind that the Foreign Secretary can do. Can he assure us that he has brought every persuasive effort to bear upon Mr. Nkomo to renounce the guerrilla war and get back to a peaceful solution? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us that absolute assurance? Can he, moreover, assure us about another matter which I think has deeply irritated us, which is that his own partner in the Anglo-American initiative seems to us to have given vent to off-the-cuff and totally unreflected comments which are bound to do nothing but damage to the prospect of a peaceful solution?

Dr. Owen: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; I think that there are positive things which can be done. But they have to be done within the framework of trying to get the greatest degree of international acceptance for this solution. It is all very well for people to isolate this issue as just an issue between this House and Rhodesia. There is the whole

question of sanctions in the United Nations. There is the whole question of African opinion. It is well recognised by Bishop Muzorewa and the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole and even Chief Chirau that it is important to try to carry as much support among the Africans as they possibly can. The United States has been working in this endeavour and has been of tremendous assistance. The Americans carry great influence in Africa at the moment—greater influence than they have ever carried before. If they put their influence, as they have done, behind a peaceful settlement, I believe it can still be achieved.

Mr. Faulds: Since this new arrangement is bound to collapse—[HON. MEMBERS: "You hope".] Wait and see. Since it is bound to collapse, will my right hon. Friend persist in including the Patriotic Front before there is any acceptance of Southern Rhodesia's independence, because its exclusion will only absolutely ensure the development of a civil war which will set the whole of Southern Africa ablaze?

Dr. Owen: I want the exclusion of none of the parties. I want all the nationalist leaders to come together, and I have striven constantly for a greater degree of unity amongst the nationalist movement. It is the absence of that unity that has been one of the most difficult problems that we have faced in Rhodesia. For instance, in the discussions in Namibia, where we are dealing broadly with a united nationalist movement, the situation is very difficult. But I can only say that I think that one will have to work for that cautiously and painstakingly, and not by making very emotive statements which can inflame either side at the moment.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Under the heading of positive things to do, will the right hon. Gentleman now put at the top of the agenda an all-out effort to get the front-line Presidents to call off the killing maiming, which are no longer necessary? Will he also send to Mr. Joshua Nkomo from his many old friends and admirers in this House the request that he, too, should call off the killing and return to Salisbury to get involved in talks before he misses the bus?

Dr. Owen: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about Mr. Nkomo.


He is a nationalist leader of distinction who has made great sacrifices for his country. He has been in prison, and he is not to be described as a terrorist and guerrilla in that sense. He has taken up armed fighting for the liberation of his country. Everyone has to come to a time when he has to decide what is in the best interests of his country. I hope that at an appropriate time, which I shall certainly try to bring about, he will feel able to participate in fair and free elections and that those in Rhodesia at the moment will so arrange the discussions that it is possible for him to do so with dignity and honour.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is still important for him to keep in touch with the front-line Presidents since there are many people throughout the world, especially coloured people, who acknowledge that in their endeavours my right hon. Friend and Mr. Andrew Young have shown great patience in trying to achieve a real solution and not a pro tem one? My right hon. Friend should not be too concerned about the Conservative Party, whose members have so reluctantly agreed to any form of endeavour to bring Mr. Smith to heel. What my right hon. Friend has to realise is that if Smith and his cohorts had been black men who had rebelled against the Crown, the Opposition would have been screaming for their lives.

Dr. Owen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The House knows that of the five front-line Presidents three are distinguished Heads of Commonwealth Governments who are, by the Heads of Commonwealth Governments' communiqués, supporters of the principles which have been endorsed by this House of trying to achieve a settlement in Rhodesia, and I believe that they wish to see Rhodesia as an independent Zimbabwe and as a full member of the Commonwealth. They have supported fair and free elections, and I shall certainly use all the influence I can to see that they use their influence, as I am sure they will, to try to bring about the unity which is necessary if all the nationalist leaders are to enter into fair and free elections.

Mr. Amery: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, at the end of the day, the acceptability or otherwise of the internal settlement should depend only on

whether this House agrees that it conforms to the six principles? Although, naturally, we want to see as much international acceptance as possible, will the right hon. Gentleman make it plain that he will not be dictated to on the question of international constitutional acceptability by the Soviet Union or the frontline Presidents, most of whom are not the leaders of democratic countries, or even by the United States, whose experience of civil rights is fairly recent?

Dr. Owen: The first test of acceptability, and the most important one, is for the people of Rhodesia as a whole. It is then for this Government and for this House to determine whether that acceptability is valid. The only authority to legalise the situation in Southern Rhodesia is the House of Commons.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Mr. Molloy) said that we should not be worried about the opposite side of the House. This is far too serious a matter for party divisions. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to carry out the policy that he is following, because this is the only way that will bring about a satisfactory result. We do not yet know enough about what is proposed in Rhodesia. Are those in detention to be released or not? Will he make sure that those in detention and the leaders of the Patriotic Front are joined together before any Rhodesia settlement, otherwise it will never be solved?

Dr. Owen: It is envisaged that those in detention will be released, but the details have yet to be discussed. There are very important details to be discussed with many other Governments in Africa who understand the need and desirability of getting the greatest degree of international acceptance for a settlement. The South African Government throughout have stressed the importance of having international acceptability if possible, and anyone looking at the situation, at the dangers of continued violent struggle with the present level of forces there, and at the damage being done internationally can understand the desire to make peace.

Mr. Hastings: Has the Foreign Secretary had time to consider Ambassador Young' statement before Malta to the effect that his version of the Anglo-United States initiative is that it must be


acceptable to the East—that is, to the USSR? I have written to him on this matter. Will he dissociate himself from this statement, and from pressure and advice from this quarter, which is positively dangerous?

Dr. Owen: I have already stressed that the United States Administration at present enjoys better understanding and respect in Africa and has greater involvement in Africa than it has had for many years. One of the people who has made a major contribution to this end has been Ambassador Young. The United States Administration has been a firm supporter throughout of the Anglo-United States initiative and I have no wish to say anything today that will endanger that relationship in any way.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and then two more hon. Members from the Opposition, because a great number of Opposition Members have been standing since the beginning. I would remind the House that we have to get through the business questions and the timetable motion.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend agree that there is something surprising—or perhaps not so surprising—in the fact that the Opposition have accepted a deal cooked up by Mr. Smith without looking at the terms? At the moment as far as we know there have yet to be major discussions on the real issue—who will control law and order in the transitional period? Why does the Foreign Secretary think that on this occasion Mr. Smith is genuine in his attempts to reach a peaceful solution?

Dr. Owen: I have made no secret of my view that Mr. Smith has responded to considerable pressures put upon him in many way from different quarters. The composition of the security forces, as Bishop Muzorewa indicated on Sunday, is one of the major issues to be discussed and put before the transitional Government. If a satisfactory solution could be achieved it would offer a way of bringing back into Rhodesia many people who are outside the country fighting for their freedom.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Foreign Secretary said that it was important to reach agreement with those presently inside and outside Rhodesia. In view of what is going on in the rest of Africa, will he give an assurance that the pressures that he will put on the Patriotic Front and its allies will be at least as strong as, and, I hope, stronger than, the pressures put on those who have reached an agreement within Rhodesia? Will he accept that if an interim Government is formed, without agreement from those outside, but which accords with the six principles, it will be the responsibility of this House and Britain to ensure that that regime is brought about as quickly and peacefully as possible.

Dr. Owen: In the discussions that hope we shall be able to undertake between all the parties, I shall use all the persuasion I can and bring to bear all the influence of the Government to try to bring about a necessary compromise. Clearly, that includes the forces of the Patriotic Front and other nationalist parties.
On the interim Government, I think that this House will want to be very sure of the eventual transition to a fully independent Government and the constitutional independence of Zimbabwe before making the decision for which the right hon. Gentleman asks. This is not a new condition. It is part of the six principles. The relationship of the interim Government to the final stage has yet to be discussed, and Bishop Muzorewa wants the election to be held in September this year. The quicker the country can be brought to full independence, the more likely we are to get a satisfactory solution.

Mr. Aitken: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that his answers this afternoon give the impression that he is making an ungracious climb-down from what has turned out to be a policy of backing the wrong horse? Will he, with Ambassador Young, pay more attention to the peace-loving, democratic Africans within Rhodesia than to the guerrillas outside?

Dr. Owen: Bishop Muzorewa and the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole both supported the Anglo-United States initiative throughout all stages since its introduction in September last year. They are


still arguing that the proposals that they have achieved within Rhodesia accord with this initiative. Any objective observer of the scene, seeing what has happened, would not deny that one of the pressures which brought about the significant change has been the acceptance of the Anglo-United States initiative and the proposals for which we have been fighting.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20TH FEBRUARY.—Second Reading of the Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Bill and of the Employment Subsidies Bill.
TUESDAY 21ST FEBRUARY.—Supply [8th Allotted Day]: there will be a debate on taxation, on an Opposition motion.
Debate on the Seventh Report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in Session 1976–77 on Members' secretaries and research assistants.
WEDNESDAY 22ND FEBRUARY.—Third Reading of the Scotland Bill.
THURSDAY 23RD FEBRUARY.—Supply [9th Allotted Day]: debate on "Developments in the European Communities July-December 1977", Command No. 7100.
Second Reading of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords] and of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provision) Bill [Lords], which are consolidation measures.
Motion on EEC Document R/1123/76 on "Conflict of laws on employment relationships in the Community".
FRIDAY 24TH FEBRUARY.—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 27TH FEBRUARY.—Supply [10th Allotted Day]: subject for debate to be announced.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I put two points to the right hon. Gentleman? He has been asked on previous occasions whether he would provide a day to debate foreign affairs in general. Assuming that a Rhodesian settlement is to be signed, will he also set aside a full day for a debate on Rhodesia, which would seem to be urgent?
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will know that yesterday the Government announced in the form of a Written Answer a grant of a further £90 million to the Crown Agents. Surely when a sum of that size is in question, the House has a right to question the Minister about it. Will he arrange for an oral statement to be made next week?

Mr. Foot: I have nothing further to add to what I said earlier—which I must acknowledge was not immediately hopeful—in regard to a general debate on foreign affairs. As for a special debate on Rhodesia, I would have thought that, in view of the statement made by the Foreign Secretary a few moments ago, it would be advisable to leave a little time before a debate takes place in order to see the exact position. The Opposition have their own opportunities, but I believe we should wait for a little while before it is advisable to have a debate.
On the topic of a statement on the Crown Agents, I shall see whether such a statement can be made next week.

Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement next week explaining how he intends to carry out the undertaking that he gave on 28th November to introduce proposals for stronger parliamentary control over EEC legislation?

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise to make a statement on that subject next week, but I am fully aware of the undertaking I gave during that debate. The Government have given undertakings to bring forward proposals to the House. The undertaking I gave was that we would bring forward fresh proposals during this Session. However, there is still a long time for this Session to go, and I hope that it will be towards the early part of that period rather than the later part.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the long, growing list of Northern Ireland orders awaiting the


attention of this House? Will it not conduce to the convenience of this House, as well as the proper handling of this business, if he could put forward a plan for dealing with this large mass of orders?

Mr. Foot: I shall examine the matter afresh in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman said. It is a problem which has faced the House owing to the different situation and relationship between this House and Northern Ireland and which has arisen in the past three or four years. That has given special problems to this House. We have made an attempt to overcome the situation, but I shall see whether we can make further efforts to assist.

Mr. Abse: Will my right hon. Friend examine Early-Day Motion No. 115 which is in the names of 207 hon. Members on the subject of Windscale? There is pressure in some quarters in response to that motion seeking a full debate in the House before a decision is taken. If there is any suggestion of a cosmetic operation, may I ask my right hon. Friend—and I do not wish to be churlish, in view of his comments on other occasions on this matter—whether he considers that the matter should not be debated by the House fully, because such an important decision is at stake?

[That this House calls on the Secretary of State for the Environment to publish the inspector's report on the Windscale Inquiry so that the issues may be debated in this House before any Ministerial decision is taken.]

Mr. Foot: I am not interested in any cosmetic operation, as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) last week. The right hon. Gentleman, with his ministerial knowledge of how these matters were dealt with, acknowledged the difficulties. I hope I was forthcoming on that occasion by saying that we were looking for methods by which we could overcome the difficulties. I appreciate the point that is being underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), and I assure him that we are seeking to overcome the difficulties.

Mr. Farr: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Early-Day Motion No. 159, signed by a large num-

ber of hon. Members, concerning the effect of the Northern Ireland firearms order which aims at putting up fees for firearms by 90 per cent.? Will the right hon. Gentleman find time to debate this matter on the Floor?

[That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 1977 (S.R. &amp; 0. (N.I.), 1977, No. 360), dated 15th December 1977, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th December 1977, be annulled.]

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise time to debate the matter on the Floor of the House, but I shall examine afresh the matter put to me by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, if there is to be a Third Reading of the Scotland Bill next Wednesday, he will not immediately propose to introduce the Wales Bill, thus enabling other matters concerning other parts of the United Kingdom to be discussed on the Floor of the House—for example, the situation in the British motor car industry?

Mr. Foot: I know that there are a whole host of matters that the House wishes to discuss. I have already indicated when announcing business for next week that there are important matters to be discussed, apart from these legislative proposals. We are not suggesting that we should embark on the Wales Bill immediately after Wednesday of next week. But we are committed to carrying through that measure this Session and propose to take steps to that effect.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the book "The Pencourt File" contains evidence that casts doubt on the propriety of the actions of the Secretary of State for Social Services in his official capacity in relation to certain files? Is it not important to clear up this matter? Is there any reason why it should not be cleared up by the Leader of the House inviting his right hon. Friend to come to the House next week and make a statement?

Mr. Foot: I think that my right lion. Friend the Prime Minister has already dealt with this question in a satisfactory manner.

Mr. Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend say when the House can expect publication of the long-promised Bill to reorganis the electricity supply industry? Is it true that the Bill is being held up because of objections to it by the Liberal Party?

Mr. Foot: I understand my hon. Friend's interest in the matter. It is a Bill that was indicated in the Queen's Speech. I hope that a Bill will be coming forward.

Mr. MacKay: The right hon. Gentleman no doubt will be aware that there is considerable public support for the Protection of Children Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). Is he also aware that the Bill received a Second Reading last Friday, unopposed? He will know that there is considerable backing among Private Members for the Bill, but that it is not likely to reach its Committee stage for some time. Bearing in mind the precedent that certain Private Members' Bills have been allotted Government time, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, because of public concern, to give Government time to this most important measure?

Mr. Foot: I read an account of what happened to that Bill, although I was not present for the debate last Friday. I fully accept the wide interest which has been expressed in that measure. It is not a question of the allocation of Government time. If the hon. Gentleman would like to come and discuss the matter with me, I shall do what I can to assist in accordance with the normal procedure.

Mr. Watt: In view of last night's regrettable and disgraceful decision in the House by which every Scottish elector had his vote devalued, does the right hon. Gentleman now propose to introduce a Bill that will place Scottish electors on a separate roll in which every Member of Parliament elected from Scotland will require a 40 per cent. vote?

Mr. Foot: I regret the decision taken by the House yesterday, but the House did in fact take that decision. I suggest that we come along to the House next Wednesday and do our best to rectify part of the situation then.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: On the subject of Windscale, will my right hon. Friend accept that the majority opinion in the

House is to recognise the legal difficulties that face my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for the Environment—problems which are created because the matter involves a planning application and the presentation of a report? Will my right hon. Friend consider the separation of the legal issues from the real question which this House would like to discuss—that is, the question of the safe disposal of nuclear waste and the transportation of nuclear materials?
In regard to nuclear material, is it not possible for the Leader of the House to put before the House suitable means by which we would be able to debate the matter so that we may come to a sensible conclusion before the Secretary of State for the Environment comes to the House to make a report on the legal matters that arise?

Mr. Foot: I am not sure whether separation can be brought about in exactly that way. I assure my hon. Friend, as I assured my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), that we are examining the matter to see how best we can ensure that the House is given some opportunity to put forward its views.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is it not true that the Scotland Bill has been a total shambles for the Government all the way through and that the best thing would be to kill it next Wednesday? Do the Government realise that on the Wales Bill on a free vote they would be lucky to obtain 20 votes?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman and the House must take account of the fact that there was a good majority for the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill and I am sure that there will be a good majority for the Third Reading. That is the matter to which I was referring a minute ago and which, apparently, gave rise to some anxiety in the mind of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). I am suggesting that the House should carry the Bill on Third Reading. The more speedily that we can proceed, the sooner the Scottish people will have the chance, under the referendum, to give their view.
As for the Wales Bill, the Government are committed to it and we certainly intend to introduce it, to do our best to carry it on the statute book and to give


the people of Wales the opportunity to decide the matter in the end.

Mr. Leadbitter: Does my right hon. Friend recall that for some years, regional debates were held on the Floor of the House? As an experiment, they were taken upstairs in Committee, but it is a long time since a debate took place upstairs. In view of the importance of regional problems at present, will he consider examining the possibility of reintroducing these debates, preferably on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Foot: I shall look at what my hon. Friend has said, though I cannot promise that we shall be able to offer time for a debate in the next few weeks. I hope that the debates in Committee will proceed. Of course, there are other debates on which many of these matters can be raised. Indeed, there is a debate next week on one aspect of employment policy and I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will seize that opportunity to put their case. Of course, when we come to the Budget, there will be considerable time to discuss many of these matters, but I am not rejecting my hon. Friend's proposal on that count.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must be mindful of the fact that the following business is covered by a timetable motion. I shall call four of the hon. Members who have been seeking throughout to catch my eye.

Mr. Jasper More: Is it not clear that the Leader of the House should reconsider the terms of his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) in regard to the Secretary of State for Social Services? When such allegations have been made publicly in a national newspaper and if legal proceedings are not to be taken, would it not be right for the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister to come here and say what is to be done to clear up this matter?

Mr. Foot: If we were to come to the House to comment on every foolish tale in the newspapers, we should not have time to comment on anything else.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The House will have 10 days to discuss the Wales Bill, but will the right hon. Gentleman give

urgent and serious consideration to the proposal that we should have a Welsh day on the Floor of the House? We have not had such a day since 5th November 1976 and Welsh problems have intensified greatly since then.

Mr. Foot: I know the commitment about Welsh debates. We shall be having debates in the Wales Bill which will consume some part of the time of the House. The Welsh Grand Committee discusses many important questions. I insist that I am not seeking to alter the arrangements about debates on the Floor of the House, but obviously such a debate cannot take place in the near future.

Mr. Pattie: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that the Civil Liability (Contribution) Bill received its Second Reading on Friday and will he arrange for early consideration in Committee of this measure, which has all-party support? Will he also reconsider his answers to my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. More) and Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on the question of a statement by the Secretary of State for Social Services, or does he think that it is important for allegations of this sort to go unanswered?

Mr. Foot: On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have nothing to add to what I said before.
On the first part, concerning the passage of his Bill last Friday, very little has been on my mind to compare with that burdensome subject since then.

Mr. Haselhurst: Will the right hon. Gentleman make time available soon for a debate on the White Paper on airports policy as it would seem that consultations are already going ahead to implement the policy contained in the White Paper without the House having had a chance to debate the policy?

Mr. Foot: There is a Bill before the House on which discussions have taken place, though I am not saying that it is a substitute for a debate on the White Paper. I should think that some time could pass before we could most profitably have a debate on this whole matter.

BRITISH LEYLAND

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask your indulgence because


I was not able to give you notice of this matter before 12 o'clock today as I was involved in a meeting.
I should like to raise under Standing Order No. 9 a matter that is definite, urgent and of public importance, namely the proposal of British Leyland to close No. 2 plant at Speke, Liverpool, which will throw out of work 3,000 workers in an area which already has 90,000 unemployed.

Mr. Speaker: I wish that I could give the hon. Gentleman leave to make his application, though I am not saying that I would grant it, but the rules of the House provide that notice should have been sent to my office this morning. If an application is not put in before 12 o'clock or does not arise in the course of the day's business, it would be unfair to others for me to allow the application to be made. I should be opening a door that I would never be able to close. This has to be done in the interests of the House, and I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman is unable to pursue the matter in this way, serious as it undoubtedly is.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say that I only got the notice from British Leyland after 12 o'clock? I did not have it before. I had to see the notice from Leyland before knowing precisely what it was talking about.

Mr. Speaker: We all knew from the national Press this morning. We had the details on the news last night. I want to be fair to the hon. Gentleman, but I must protect the rules of the House, and in this case the hon. Gentleman must seek another opportunity through the Order Paper or in some other way to advance the interests of his constituents in this matter.
I advise the hon. Gentleman to use the normal procedures which are available to him. He could follow up the matter next week at business questions or, possibly, through the usual channels.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not challenging your ruling, but you referred to the fact that this information was in the national newspapers and on the news. That is true, but I do not believe everything I read in the newspapers. I waited because it was important to see precisely what the firm had actually said.
I received the document after 12 o'clock today. It clearly explained the company's point of view on why it was closing the plant. It was on that basis that I sought leave to raise the matter.
I shall not pursue the matter further now, but I shall endeavour to pursue it as hard as I possibly can because I do not think that we can allow 3,000 workers to be thrown out of work in an area of 90,000 unemployed without trying to raise the matter here, which, for me, is the most important place to try to settle matters of this kind.

Mr. Speaker: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I understand that he feels very strongly about this matter, but he is a good parliamentarian and he acknowledges the difficulty in which I find myself.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your ruling, you said that if a matter came to the Floor of the House, it would be in order to make an application under Standing Order No. 9. Has it not now come to the Floor of the House and could not some other hon. Member make such an application?

Mr. Speaker: That is a theological point.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Export Guarantees (Extension of Period) (No. 2) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL

[ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended, considered.

New Clause 2

APPROVAL OF SALARIES, &c.

"This Act shall not come into force until the House of Commons has considered and approved the salaries and expenses to be paid to Members of the European Assembly".—[Mr. Madden.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am sure that other hon. Members will share my experiences of the extreme difficulty of obtaining any information, let alone accurate information, about the salaries, expenses and other benefits which are proposed for Members of a directly-elected European Assembly.
I asked the Library to give me all the information that it could on these matters. I was told:
Comprehensive information on this subject is not very readily available as it tends to be treated as an internal administration matter of the Assembly".
The Library added:
On salary and allowances to be paid to directly elected Assembly Members, this is of course the responsibility of the Community institutions themselves. It is not a matter on which the Government accepts responsibility to the House and so far as I can see the Government has not taken a position in the House on it".
Several references have been made earlier today about the imprudence of accepting all that is written in newspapers. As a working journalist of some experience—

Mr. Norman Atkinson: And a very good one, too.

Mr. Madden: As a working journalist of some experience, I share that view. I think that it is a general rule that hon. Members should observe. However, on

occasions—certainly when there is difficulty gaining information from other sources—the Press can be extremely helpful. On the proposals for salaries, expenses and other benefits of directly elected Members, the Press has been the only source of some information.
The following headlines give some indication of the view of the Press of those proposals. The Irish Times had an article headlined:
Euro MPs Set For Bonanza".
The Economist referred to "The Lure of Europe".
The Sunday Times asked:
Is There a Gravy Train on the Strasbourg Run?
The Times commented:
A Well-Paid House of Europe".
Those headlines give an indication of the substance of some extremely interesting stories. They were based primarily on rumours about the recommendations of a working party of the European Assembly that was beavering away on proposals for salaries, expenses and other benefits of directly-elected Members of the European Parliament. I understand that two of the members of the working party were Lord Bessborough and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas).
I do not know whether the newspaper articles to which I have referred were based on inspired leaks or briefings, but they seemed to contain a great deal of detailed information that has not led to any comment so far that I have been able to secure from Ministers or other official sources.
The articles stated that the working party had unanimously agreed on a series of recommendations. For instance, it recommended that consideration should be given to two salary scales. The lesser scale would give directly elected Members of the European Assembly from Britain salaries of £22,782 a year, which, after a special Common Market rate of tax, reduced below the level prevailing in the rest of the United Kingdom, would leave Members with £16,392. The higher scale recommended by the working party was £30,692, which, after the payment of the special EEC tax, would amount to £21,544. In addition, the working party proposed most substantial allowances, partial legal immunity and reduced tax rates.
The working party went on to propose substantial family allowances, sickness benefit and other fringe benefits worth several thousand pounds a year. It suggested that directly elected Members of the European Assembly from Britain and other member States of the Common Market should have offices in their own countries and a paid secretary. Also among the recommendations was the proposal that Members should have full-time research assistants earning salaries of between £10,090 a year and £12,000. Finally, it was suggested that those who were no longer members of a directly elected European Assembly should have a golden handshake of up to one year's salary.
These stories attracted some modest attention within the British Press. I am sure that most of my colleagues will agree that these matters did not grab the headlines of several newspapers over a considerable period. When challenged, officials of the European Assembly were circumspect and guarded in making any comment. The comments that I have been able to find consist of noncommittal and reserved responses that point out that no final decision may be taken by the Commission or the Council of Ministers until all nine member States are irrevocably committed to take part in direct elections.
The reasons for the proposals made by the working party were varied. There were all sorts of comments about the need to attract people of all talents and of impressive calibre. There was talk about the enormous variation in salaries and allowances of Members of other member State Parliaments. It was argued that it was unacceptable to do anything that brought Members below the standard prevailing in Germany, which is the country that pays its legislators the highest salaries, allowances and other benefits.
It is interesting to dwell on the comments made recently in Ireland by Herr Ludwig Felleurmaier, the Chairman of the Assembly's Socialist Group. He recently told The Irish Times that Members of the German Parliament now receive a total of £33,060 a year, and that an equivalent salary would be expected by Germans directly elected to any European Assembly. Those who might wish to support that view should consider one thing that Herr Felleurmaier said, namely, that it was not merely a parity argument.

He made the interesting comment that it was essential for European parliamentarians to maintain their independence from national pressures. He said that in view of the geographical constituency problems of European representation a large income would be a necessity. He added that it would be a necessity to ensure that salary, expenses and other benefits were equal.
The figures that I have given are not fanciful, or figments of the colourful imagination of a journalist. The allowances and conditions of existing Assembly Members indicate that the view on these matters of those who control the European Assembly is far from niggardly. An ex-Member of the present Assembly told The Sunday Times last July that he was no longer a member of what he called the "gravy train". He went on to claim that it was possible to make £9,000 a year over and above his Westminster salary on Assembly expenses. The article revealed that travelling expenses to Luxembourg were at least £200, regardless of the class or cost of travel. If Members chose to fly tourist, it cost £80. Obviously the difference went to the Member. I understand that the allowance for that form of travel has increased five times in the past year.
The article went on to state that once in Luxembourg Members enjoyed an allowance of £53 a day for living expenses. Although The Sunday Times Common Market editor believed that that was about right to permit Members to live in a reasonable style, Lord Brimelow, former head of the Diplomatic Service, who we must assume knows what living in style is all about, was moved to confess to The Sunday Times:
I think these allowances are rather on the high side myself. I find I just do not spend the full allowance".
4.30 p.m.
The noble Lord went on to confess that he had attended a European Assembly meeting in London earlier in the year for two days and had received £106. The only outlays that he had been called upon to make were bus fares to and from Lancaster House. He went on to say"
This was obviously a bit extravagant".
I am sure that most Members would heartily endorse the view of Lord Brimelow.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Whatever we may think about the calculation of the expenses, if expenses are being drawn in excess of expenditure, surely the British Inland Revenue ought to be taking an interest in the matter.

Mr. Madden: That may be so. I shall be coming to that matter.

Mr. Neil Marten: Of course, there is just the possibility that a Member of Parliament having a constituency on the South Coast of England could keep a car in Calais, go across the Channel, drive to Brussels and back, and still draw the entire travel allowance, thus making for himself a substantial profit.
As for the salaries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I should point out that I have been chasing officials at the Treasury to find out whether those salaries will be taxable. I should have thought that it was simple enough for anybody to give the answer, but the Treasury cannot tell us whether those salaries will be taxable. It could not tell us on 1st February this year.

Mr. Madden: The hon. Gentleman has brought out some extremely interesting matters to which I was intending to refer later. Our understanding on that matter coincides.
Present Members of the European Assembly receive a secretarial allowance in addition to the secretarial allowance that they enjoy as Members of this House. I understand that the travelling allowance—this relates to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten)—is 35p a mile for the first 250 miles and 13p a mile thereafter. That is calculated from a point midway between a Member's constituency and London. Westminster Members of Parliament have free warrants between their constituencies and London. Clearly, the Assembly's calculation offers an additional benefit to existing Assembly Members.
The working party to which I referred was unanimous in its view that new Euro-MPs should pay low rates of income tax comparable with Commission staff. I understand that the Inland Revenue is already pressing for the taxation of the daily allowances paid to Assembly Members. Such Members are officially regarded as being resident in Britain and normally subject to British income tax.
Travel and subsistence allowances may already be paid by bank transfer to any account of a Member's choice, based on the exchange value of the European unit of account in his national currency. It is also open to an Assembly Member to be paid in any currency of his choice other than that of his own country. I am sure that it is important that we consider collectively the wisdom of such arrangements. Obviously we must take account of the possibility—I put it no higher than that—of abuse of such loose arrangements.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I should like to be absolutely sure about the expenses that my hon. Friend has mentioned so far. Is he saying that a flat amount is paid—he mentioned £53 a day and £200 for travel—without any request being made to a Member to sign, as we sign for our secretarial expenses, that the money has in fact been expended?

Mr. Madden: That is my understanding. I hope that Members of the Assembly who have far greater knowledge of these matters than I have will be able to give information to the House. We are denied accurate information about these matters. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence to ensure that the media, this House, the public and other public representatives are kept in the dark about these matters. The Government have not been forthcoming about their attitude to these matters. We do not know what attitude will be adopted by the Council of Ministers when these proposals are discussed. It is essential that we have clear information and that the House be asked to consider and approve any proposals relating to these matters before the legislation comes into force. That is the demand that is made in the new clause.
We should also be concerned about the legal status and privileges that directly-elected Members of the European Assembly may enjoy. The report of the working party stated that the Council of Ministers would have to decide
when a Member is entitled to immunity".
Casting our minds back to the extremely tangled web woven by the Select Committee on Members' Interests and the comments of the Salmon Committee and others, we know about the complexities


of the legal position of Members of this House. Therefore, the difficulties that could arise regarding legal immunity for Members of a directly elected European Assembly could be monumental. On the best available information that we have—I stress that it is from newspapers and reports which, so far as I am aware, have not been published and are not available in the Library—that appears to be the position.
Are we satisfied that, if these proposals are endorsed, directly elected Members of the European Assembly should be 10 times better off than their Westminster counterparts? Do we believe that Euro-MPs should be substantially better off than the Prime Minister? Are we agreeing that this legislation should be passed and that British taxpayers should be asked to sign a substantial blank cheque to underwrite the enormous salaries, expenses and benefits of the 81 directly elected Members who will represent the United Kingdom in the European Assembly?
That is an unsatisfactory position. I am sure that the public will believe it to be a very unsatisfactory position. The people of this country have not given any mandate for approval of these matters. The final insult in this long and unhappy saga would be if the legislation came into force without these matters having been considered and approved by the House. I urge that the new clause be accepted, in the name not only of democracy but of good government.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I support the new clause for reasons rather different from those advanced by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden).
It is not for us to cast aspersions on our colleagues for what they may or may not do with the money that they are paid. The fundamental fact is that the standard of living in Europe is much higher than it is here, and that is reflected in higher living costs. I think that the Members of the European Assembly, whether they be Euro-Communists, Euro-Conservatives, Euro-Liberals or Euro-Socialists, at wherever it is decided the headquarters of the Parliament should be—there seems to be some doubt about that between the Prime Minister of Luxembourg and the President of France,

who are having a considerable hassle about the timing of their elections—should be paid the proper rate for the job.
I do not want to declare any personal interest in those matters. I do not propose to stand, as some hon. Members do, for those eminent offices. Nor do I take a dog-in-the-manger view of the situation. Nevertheless, it is very important that the Fees Office should be used as a means of paying our representatives abroad. That seems a perfectly reasonable suggestion, reasonably put forward in the new clause. I support the new clause, first, because it will establish a link between our representatives abroad and the House. Second, it will mean that they will feel themselves tied to the body politic and not astral bodies floating in Europe without connection with the House of Commons. That is very important.
Third, the new clause could be interpreted as a Draconian measure by which, if the House felt displeased with its European representatives, it could move to have their salaries reduced. We do that with Ministers. I do not say that that would happen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I am not sure whether what the right hon. Gentleman is now approaching falls within the new clause that we are debating.

Mr. John Roper: The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) has just said "if the House felt displeased with its European representatives". Does he not agree that they will be the representatives not of this House but of the British people after they have been directly elected by the British people? In any case, we are debating not New Clause 1 but New Clause 2, which makes no reference to the Fees Office.

Mr. Fraser: I am putting forward a concept. There should be a proper relationship between our representatives abroad and this House of Commons.

Mr. Roper: The clause does not say that.

Mr. Fraser: It says that, in so far as it is written down, that the Fees Office—

Mr. Roper: The right hon. Gentleman has got the wrong clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now directing his attention to New Clause 1, which has not been selected.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I do not necessarily agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I can see that he is strictly in order. New Clause 2 provides that the House of Commons should consider what the salaries are. Therefore, it seems highly logical that the House of Commons should decide the matter. So I am at least following the right hon. Gentleman in his lucid logicality.

Mr. Fraser: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very helpful intervention.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) agree that if the House of Commons is to control these salaries and expenses it already has the machinery at hand to do so, namely, the Fees Office?

Mr. Fraser: That was the point that I was endeavouring to make, and I thought that I had made it. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) for his reinforcement of this powerful argument. There is the danger that our representatives in Europe and the representatives of the people in this House of Commons will express views which are completely out of kilter one with another.
We have talked about the problems that could arise with the Scotland Bill. Far more extreme and dangerous problems could arise between this House and the European Parliament. Therefore, I hope that the proposal to establish this link is successful.
It is impossible to exaggerate the danger and damage that could be done unless there is a proper relationship between the House and the Members who sit in the European Assembly. There are many problems in Europe today. The Foreign Office, with the greatest humility, has approached the German Government about a new Summit. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) in the European Assembly denounced Chancellor Schmidt for not reflating the German economy fast enough. I can imagine no area in which greater international trouble would be

caused than by the speeches of persons who are said to represent the British Parliament but who are in no way subject to British sovereignty. This ingenious clause could well provide a cash nexus between the House and those who represent us overseas. Therefore, I hope that the new clause will be accepted by this House.
4.45 p.m.
There have been great difficulties. It is not just the fault of Labour Members. It is not the fault of our Minister of Agriculture. It is not the fault of representatives of the Government. The problem arises because of the intrinsic difficulties in the relationship of this island State to the mainland of Europe. Those difficulties are becoming more and more apparent, whether they be in regard to agriculture, oil, kilometres, tachometers, or whatever. Above all, there is a great constitutional difference—let no one forget it—between the constitutional belief and meaning of our society and that of other European societies, which have written constitutions, or constitutions created in the last 20, 30 or 50 years. Naturally, we shall be in great difficulties. The fault lies not so much in the nature of the Government as in the nature of the difficulties that lie between this country and our European partners.
It may well be said that we are more vociferous than federative in some of the actions that we are bound to take. In those circumstances, it is important that we should try, somehow, to establish a cash nexus, if need be, between this sovereign body of Parliament and those who represent us in Europe. At the end of the day, those who know what is being thought in this country, those who are in touch with the feeling of the country, will not be Members of a European Parliament, representing 500,000 people, but Members of this House of Commons. That is why I believe that the new clause should be carried.

Mr. Roper: When we were debating the Second Reading of the Bill on 7th July I referred to this problem of salaries and said that I was sure that we should have to return to it at some stage. We need today to consider very carefully the alternative bases on which those who are elected by the British people to represent them in the European Parliament will


be paid after direct elections in May or June of next year. There is a good deal of confusion about this matter.
When I spoke on 7th July the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) interrupted me to say that the decision would be made by the European Parliament itself and there was, therefore, little we could do about it. What we have discovered since then suggests that it will not be the European Parliament which will make the decision but that it will be a matter for the Council of Ministers. Since the Council of Ministers will have to be unanimous our Ministers will have a right to intervene and to ensure that the decision is acceptable to them and, thus, to this House.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sure that the hon. Member is technically correct but does he not think that before the Council of Ministers proceeds to whatever decision it may formally have to take it will have received from the Assembly a recommendation put forward on the authority of the Assembly?

Mr. Roper: No doubt, as has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), the Assembly will have its views on these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) will be able to tell us more about the activities of the Assembly, as no doubt, will the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). It is important to go back to Article 13 of the decision of the Council of Ministers on the subject of direct elections. Article 13 says:
Should it appear necessary to adopt measures to implement this Act, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Assembly after consulting the Commission, shall adopt such measures, after endeavouring to reach agreement with the Assembly in a conciliation committee consisting of the Council and representatives of the Assembly".
It is absolutely clear from the decision of the Council of Ministers on direct elections that the last word on any matter affecting these salaries will lie with the Council. It is made quite clear, because of this opportunity for attempted conciliation, that if it is unable to reach agreement with the Assembly, the Council of Ministers can make the decision on its own and ignore any view of the Assembly. I am sure that it will want to

take into account the views, both of the present Assembly and, perhaps much more appropriately, the new Assembly. Who knows which Members of the present Assembly are likely to be Members of the new Assembly? It does not seem that the present Assembly is a relevant body. It will be the new Assembly, those elected by the British people and the people of the other countries, who will have more say about this matter. It is clear from the decision of the Community that a decision will be taken by the Council of Ministers and not by the Assembly.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Is not that an argument in support of the new clause because in the event of it being carried our representatives at the Council of Ministers could put into effect the decision of this House?

Mr. Roper: I shall come to that point. If this matter has to come to the Council of Ministers it will be something which will also come to the Scrutiny Committee. If that happens it will be possible for it to be reported to the House and for the House to debate it. I was about to point out that since we have this procedure for anything coming before the Council of Ministers—

Mr. Marten: We have to be a little careful about assuming that it will come to the Scrutiny Committee. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister to give an assurance that there will be no decision on this subject until the House has debated it?

Mr. Roper: I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member. The point that I was about to make is that, given that we have the procedure of the Scrutiny Committee for considering anything that goes to the Council of Ministers, and given the fact that we would want to make sure that this matter did come before the Scrutiny Committee and was recommended for a debate in the House before a decision was reached, it seems that there is already a provision to cover this situation without the necessity of introducing the new clause.
I want to discuss the various bases on which salaries might eventually rest. There seem to be three options if we are starting from scratch and thinking about salaries for Members of the European


Parliament. The first option would be to take what appears to have been the view of the Berendts working party, namely, that all Members of the European Parliament should have identical salaries because they would be spending the majority of their working time in the same environment and would, therefore, be subject to the same expenses. The figures quoted by the working party relate to salaries which have been paid to Members of Parliament in one member State.
That basis is not the only one on which we could fix salaries. We could, for example, look at the way in which the Commission pays salaries to its officials. I draw the attention of the House to the important document which we considered in the Scrutiny Committee towards the end of last year. This is document No. 564, the Commission's report on the annual review of the remuneration of officials and other servants.

Mr. John Farr: Before the hon. Member goes any further and to put the matter into perspective, will he assure the House that he is not likely to present himself for nomination in the European Parliament elections? If he were to be thinking of such a course he would no doubt have declared his interest in the matter by now.

Mr. Roper: I am sorry that the hon. Member was not in the House on 7th July when this matter was discussed and when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked a number of hon. Members who spoke to declare whether they intended to stand for election. It was on that occasion that I referred initially to the question of salaries and made my own position clear.

Mr. Farr: What is it?

Mr. Roper: That I have no intention of putting myself forward as a candidate for the European Parliament. I therefore have a certain independence in speaking on this matter. I have dealt with this already in the House and do not feel that it is necessary for me to go back to what I said earlier.
I had just referred to the recent document which has appeared before the Scrutiny Committee, the Commission's report for 1977 on the annual review on the remuneration of officials and other servants. That review cosiders a num-

ber of matters and in particular, on page 4, considers the weightings which are given to the employees of the Commission in different parts of the Community.
Although it may be generally assumed that the same salaries are paid in Brussels, Luxembourg, Bonn and London, this is not the case. There is a series of weightings which takes into account the differences in the cost of living in the various capitals of Europe. As a result, a salary in London is only 58 per cent. of the salary which would be paid to the same official working in Bonn. This principle, which is already being used by the Commission for the salaries of officials, might well be the sort of proposal which the Minister of State and his colleagues on the Council of Ministers would wish to consider when they examine an appropriate basis for the payment of Members of the European Parliament.
It might be possible to fix a salary for Members which had a common theoretical level throughout the Community but which varied in practice by applying precisely the same weightings as are used for the officials of the Commission. That would produce a salary for a British Member living in London different from the salary paid to a German Member of the European Parliament who spends most of his time in Germany.

Mr. Jay: As my hon. Friend wants us to take officials' salaries as a sort of criterion, can he tell us the present salary of the President of the Commission, for example?

Mr. Roper: I do not have that figure in front of me, although I have the figure for various individuals.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I think that the most recent statement was that the President's salary was around £70,000 equivalent—tax-free, of course. Why do the officials need such large salaries? I was told by my hon. Friend and people like him—there are not many in the House today, but there were many here at the time—of the great pionering spirit, the idea of adventure, about going into Europe, and how they would sacrifice all if only they could get there. Therefore why is there a need for all this


money? I should be prepared to pay a fairly substantial sum to some people to go into Europe on a productivity basis, depending on how fast they could smash the whole thing up.

Mr. Roper: My hon. Friend will no doubt be able to address those remarks to others taking part in the debate who may be more involved in the Assembly than I, as I am not a Member of the Assembly and will not be participating in it in the future.
German Members of Parliament see no reason why German Members elected to the European Parliament should receive lower salaries than those which it has been thought appropriate in Germany for a Member of Parliament to have. If the Member of the European Parliament is to do his job, there is no reason why he should not have a salary comparable to that paid to Members of national Parliaments.
I should like to pursue the point about the system of weightings that already exists within the Community. I believe that such a mechanism might be one way of solving the problems. Salaries would then be much more closely related to the needs of individual countries, while keeping a common element running through. However, I think that on balance I should continue to support what I suggested in the House on 7th July. That was that it would be appropriate, once the Parliament was directly elected, for there to be common European salaries throughout the Community, but that until there was a common system of election, while we still maintained national systems of election there was a great deal to be said for linking the salaries of those going to the European Parliament to the salaries of national Members of Parliament.
I believe that it would be proper for the Minister of State and his colleagues on the Council of Ministers to agree that the salaries should be linked in each country to the salaries of the national Members of Parliament plus—and this is where I come to the second part of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby—properly monitored, audited and controlled expenses.
I look forward to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central, because I know that he has worked in

the European Parliament for a considerable period to set up the equivalent of the Public Accounts Committee, with proper auditing of the activities of the Commission. Similarly, it is clearly important that the European Parliament should have a body external to able to audit the expenses and activities of its Members. I hope that if he catches the eye of the Chair my hon. Friend will say something about mechanisms for properly auditing the expenses paid to those serving in the European Parliament.

Mr. Madden: I referred in my speech to Ludwig Fellermaier, who, I understand, is the chairman of the largest group within the European Assembly. He has said, in the words of a newspaper report, that
There could be no question … of first-and second-class membership of the Parliament. All would have to be equal".
The report continued:
In his view where an MP was holding down two jobs, his salary from Europe should be reduced by an amount corresponding to the salary paid to him from his own country. Only a full-time European member would be entitled to a full-time salary.… He premised, though, that when a decision was taken, it would be in the open at a public meeting of the directly-elected assembly".
Therefore, on three points Mr. Fellermaier seems to be in disagreement with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Roper: I agree absolutely with Mr. Fellermaier on the second point. I have not discussed it, but I agree that if somebody holds a dual mandate the salary from his national Parliament should be offset against his salary from the European Parliament.
I believe that the question of equal salaries is one that the Council of Ministers must consider, but once the Assembly is directly elected it will be entitled to have a view. However, it is clear from the text that the decision is not within its competence but is within the competence of the Council of Ministers alone.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend is assuming that in this matter the competence of the Assembly will be that of a directly elected Assembly. But Article 13 surely allows the proposal from the Assembly to be from the current Assembly, which will have views, just as this Parliament might have views about


the remuneration of the Parliament after the next General Election.

Mr. Roper: There will be a difference between, on the one hand, this Parliament and the one elected at the next General Election, because it will be elected on the same basis, and, on the other hand, the position in Europe, where we are considering a nominated Parliament as against a directly elected one. But whichever Assembly puts forward the proposals, whether the present Assembly or the next one, the decision will still be that of the Council of Ministers, as I think my hon. Friend will agree. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State can confirm that it is the decision of the Council of Ministers, and therefore I am correct in what I have said about our existing scrutiny procedure in the House, and that there will be a debate in the House before a decision is taken in the Council.
I hope that my hon. Friend will also give us an indication of the state of discussions in the Council of Ministers on this matter. In particular, does it expect to be able to make a decision, as I think some people think to be possible, at the next European Council, when the dates of the direct elections are decided, or does my hon. Friend think that it would be better for the matter to remain open until the Parliament has been directly elected?

Mr. Budgen: I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) that the issue is not whether the salaries or expenses with which we are concerned are at too high a level. It is a matter of control. I shall not compare the various salaries paid in the Assemblies throughout Europe and the developed world and say whether one Member gets a good deal and another a bad deal, and look with envy at one and with sympathy at another.
The real issue is that salaries and expenses are the outward manifestation of the status and power of an Assembly. We have had many and long discussions about the way in which this House will soon be in conflict with those who sit in the European Assembly should they become directly elected. There has been no satisfactory discussion of the various relationships that might be achieved between this House and those who sit in the European Assembly.
I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps), who said the last time the matter was discussed that one of the great criticisms of the guillotine procedure was that we had not been able properly to debate the relationship between Members of this House and Members of the European Assembly. It is the greatest criticism of the whole guillotine procedure that whereas in our discussions on both the Scotland and Wales Bill and recently the Scotland Bill many of us were aware at the start of our fundamental objection to the possibility of the break-up of the Union, we were not aware of what I call the West Lothian question. We thought that it was capable of some sort of solution, which could be reached by incessant discussion. We realised, for example, that the same problem had had to be faced by Mr. Gladstone in the 1880s, and he had not been able to find a solution. We now find that this same problem, which is exactly analogous to the West Lothian question, quite scandalously has not been discussed by the House. Yet there are still those who believe that it is capable of some solution.
The hon. Member for Dudley, West has suggested that it might be possible to have some system by which hon. Members—if that is the correct expression for them—who sit in the Assembly might speak but not vote in this House. Superficially, it is an attractive idea but, just as in the case of the in-and-out solution and various other solutions proposed, it would not work because it would mean that the only candidates who put themselves up for election to the Assembly would be those who were already Members of this House.
It would not work because the term for which a person sits in the Assembly is to be five years fixed, and the term in this House is not fixed. It just could not be done. There may be a superficial attraction in some form of rights which might be accorded to Members of the Assembly in this place, but in reality it could not be done.
Above all, it could not be done for the fundamental constitutional reason that the persons listened to in the House of Commons, and heard with attention throughout the country, are those who are known to be going to vote according


to the way in which they believe. It is that nexus between speaking and voting, between speaking and taking responsibility for what one says, that is the essence of this place, and that distinguishes it from a mere debating chamber.
So it would be that no real respect could ever be given to Members of the Assembly who merely sat and spoke here but who did not have either the responsibility to a British constituency on the same basis as ourselves or the power to vote according to what they said. Such persons could, of course, be heard in party committees or in Select Committees, but it is difficult to see how they could possibly sit or speak in this House.
I contend that one of the scandals of the guillotine procedure is that the House has never satisfactorily considered ways in which we might control those who go from this country, apparently on our behalf, to the European Assembly. Indeed, it is the inability to find any sort of solution to this West Lothian-type problem that leads me to conclude that there may be some slight control over those who go to the Assembly if we have control over their salaries and expenses, for, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) says, not only could we fix the general level of salaries and expenses but we could also express our criticism of individual Members by bringing individual motions of disapproval, motions which would cut the salaries of individual Members.
Although it is not a complete or satistory way of checking the probably ever-expanding power of the Assembly and the ever-expanding pretensions of its Members, the new clause would be a small step in the right direction, and for that reason I shall vote for it.

5.15 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) on one thing—that the question of the salaries of European Members of Parliament is not a matter for the Assembly but is for decision by the Council of Ministers. Indeed, this was confirmed to me by the Foreign Office only the other day, as I have been pursuing the matter in Questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, ask-

ing him to raise with the heads of Government in the Community
the desirability of national parliaments being able to decide the salaries of their nationals elected to the European Parliament".
The Prime Minister referred my Question to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
It is interesting that the answer was not that we were divested of power to make our separate decision in this way. Indeed, the reply confirmed that it had already been raised at Heads of Government level by the Prime Minister. The reply continued:
At the request of the European Council the question is being pursued by the Council of Ministers. Discussions are still continuing. —[Official Report, 26th January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 747.]
In other words, discussions are continuing not merely on what would be a desirable level of salary in a European Parliament but on whether the matter could and should be left to the decision of national parliaments. That is really the crux of the issue we are discussing.
I am sure that we were all deeply impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden). We all recognise how obscene it would be for us to sit back and allow British nationals elected to the European Parliament to wallow in the gravy train that perhaps we know will operate if we lose any kind of control. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth was right to say "This is under the control of the Council of Ministers", but I think his speech actually made an excellent case for the new clause.
I repeat that what we are asking for is not a chance through the Scrutiny Committee to say whether £24,000 would be too much for European Members of Parliament, or whether £16,000 would be the right figure, or whatever. We are asking for the clear acceptance by the Council of Ministers that we in this country at any rate want to control our European MPs' salaries. But we shall not do that by a casual reference from the Scrutiny Committee. We shall do it only by building it into an Act of Parliament. That is what we are asking our hon. Friends to accept. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth has, indeed, admitted that there may be alternatives to identical salaries. Of course one does not need them to be identical.
When I went as an alternate delegate to the General Assembly of the United Nations shortly after I came into this House, there was a dollar shortage of such proportions in this country that we would have been bankrupted if the British delegation had been paid comparable salaries and even comparable expenses with the rest of the delegates. Of course, we were given an allowance commensurate with our country's ability to afford it.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does the right hon. Lady approve of the existing expenses and allowances of the European Parliament?

Mrs. Castle: No, I do not. I do not approve of the control over them. I do not approve of their level. I do not approve of the principle that one turns a blind eye, that somehow the money will come from somewhere in Europe so it does not affect us here. The direct impact on our inflationary situation of Members of the European Assembly being paid out of public funds, in the name of this country, salaries way above what we should consider desirable for ourselves would be very serious.

Mr. Dykes: If the right hon. Lady disapproves of the existing arrangements, which also include a fairly substantial secretarial allowance, may I ask her whether she has discussed that with her husband, who has been a Member of the European Parliament? Has she suggested to him that it should be lower now?

Mrs. Castle: My husband knows my view, and only the most major male chauvinist would try to involve me, in my arguments about the Common Market, with my husband's attitude. It is no secret that there is a slight political difference of opinion in the Castle family on the question of direct elections, but the hon. Gentleman is living in the Victorian age when he tries to drag that one into this argument.

Mr. Michael Stewart: When the decision was taken on what expenses, and so on, my right hon. Friend was to get when she went to the United Nations, was it by the British Government or did it have the express approval of this House after being discussed by this House?

Mrs. Castle: I cannot answer that. I should imagine that it was paid by the British Government, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that the figure was so low that if it had been reduced any more, we should have been on the streets. As I remember it, it was about $14 a day, of which we had by instruction to spend $11 in staying at a reasonable hotel. That was just for bed, not bed and breakfast. We could not afford the breakfast at the hotel. We were left with only $3 per day to eat in the drugstores, having had to spend $11 per day in keeping a decent roof over our heads. I should have thought that if the question of the amount had been brought before this House, the House in its kindness would have increased it, not reduced it.
To return to the main point of my argument, what we are discussing is not what should be the level of an identical salary. We are discussing the desirability of our having the right to discuss the salary level which is appropriate to this country's needs. When my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth said "But we are not talking about representatives of this House, we are talking about representatives of the British people elected to an entirely separate Parliament", my blood really ran cold.
We are now seeing the emergence of a new type of creature with no national allegiance, no patriotism, and no identity even with the people in the constituency from which he or she comes. It is said not to matter whether the Member of the Assembly gets a salary of such size, but the fact is that it would set an inflationary precedent. We do not dare do things of that sort in this House, because we know that we are part and parcel of the lives of our constituents, and they in turn are part and parcel of our national needs and our national economy.

Mr. Roper: My right hon. Friend has quoted me. She referred to the fact that I said that we were talking of the representatives of the British people, and so on, but she will recall that I outlined three possible systems, and that the system I favoured at the end of the day was that the representatives should be paid salaries comparable with those paid in national Parliaments. My right hon. Friend, in quoting me, should remember what I said.

Mrs. Castle: In trying to wind up my remarks I was just coming to that last point of my hon. Friend, because he gave us our argument that there should be nationally decided salaries. But he qualified it when he said that this should continue up to the establishment of a common system of election. Is my hon. Friend merely saying that it should be until we have moved on to a uniform voting system, which is also envisaged by the Treaty of Rome, and towards which he and some of his pro-Market friends want to move very rapidly? What is he offering us? For what purpose is he offering us this lifeline, and is it for one year, two years, or some other period?
It was because my hon. Friend qualified his acceptance of a national salary that I believe that we must write this into the Bill, otherwise we shall find that we are on an escalator which carries us along automatically. It will then be outside the control of this House and directly elected Members will not be responsible to us. They will not be answerable in this House. Possibly none of them will be a Member of it. They will have become creatures living a life of their own, answerable to Brussels, with all its inflationary factors, but their electors will not have a Scrutiny Committee or a place in which there can be a debate about exactly what a Member is being paid and why. If a Member is to answer to an electorate of 500,000 people, what sort of control is that?
This is, therefore, our last chance to retain control over these future developments by writing it into an Act of Parliament. That is why I believe that even those hon. Members with whom I have differed over the Common Market ought to support the new clause this afternoon. If they do not we shall feed cynicism not only about the Common Market but also about the whole democratic process. It will have become too much of a "gravy train" to be tolerable, and, indeed, I think it will diminish what its supporters are trying to achieve.
Why is it that the Government do not accept this change? They are discussing the question in the Council of Ministers. The reply that I received to my Question showed that. They have the power to decide it. They have the power to choose to do this. If the Government

Front Bench ask us to reject the new clause, it will be because they are already saying that they will reject this policy in the Council of Ministers, and I think the House would find that intolerable.

Mr. Dykes: The debate has shown already one of the understandable preoccupations of this House, irrespective of variations in views about the Community and all the rest of it. The House has an understandable preoccupation with the salaries of the directly elected Members of the European Parliament. The general feeling seems to be that the salaries and the expenses should neither be excessive nor other than very carefully constructed and monitored, and carefully decided upon in the initial stage.
Despite the very persuasive arguments of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), I do not agree with the terms of the new clause, as I shall seek to explain, I hope fairly briefly. I think that the new clause is wrong for a number of reasons, but one of them must be the reason given by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in her opening remarks. There is ample evidence already of the Government's position.
I have also asked Questions on a number of occasions. I recall in particular a Question which I asked on 30th November last. I then asked for information about the basis of the discussion continuing within the EEC on the provision of salaries and allowances for directly elected Members of the European Assembly, and about the authority for any discussion in any of the institutions of the Community other than the Assembly itself. I am not quoting the words of my Question, but it was along those lines.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, replied briefly, clearly and unequivocally. He said
Discussion of this matter continues under the auspices of the Council of Ministers which has ultimate responsibility".—[Official Report, 1st December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 258.]
That is the position. There is no way in which anyone can plausibly or convincingly argue in any other sense. I was for two years a Member for the European Parliament and I am an enthusiast for our membership of the Community, but there would be no authority and


logic in the European Parliament, either as it is now constituted or in the future, having other than its own views and opinion on this matter.
In the same sense, the new directly elected European Parliament or Assembly will to a certain degree be a provisional Assembly. In that sense—this is not alarming to me and I do not see why it should be alarming to other hon. Members—it may wish to deliberate, decide, argue and discuss its relationship to the other institutions, particularly the Council of Ministers, the Commission and, in due course, the International Court of Justice.
5.30 p.m.
That is understandable and entirely reasonable. If the salaries or expenses figures have not been decided by the Council of Ministers, as is possible—I hope not—it might want to deliberate on these matters. If the initial salary and expenses figures have been determined by the Council of Ministers—that is what would prefer, and the sooner the better, so that the public can be guided about this matter—the Assembly might wish to express views and opinions about the future level of salaries and allowances.
In all conscience, I do not think that is an unreasonable or unacceptable position. It is wholly natural. The idea that Members, particularly with large-scale European-sized constituencies of 500,000 constituents—rather like the United States Senate—would not have strong views on these matters or wish to communicate them to their electorate is wholly absurd. I hope that no one will suggest that.
The key question will be the relationship between whatever the Council of Ministers discusses and individual national Parliaments that are preoccupied with the expression of views and determination of salaries and allowances. Again, I do not wish to detract from the authority of this sovereign Parliament. Of course, the House of Commons will have very strong pronounced views, some of which have already come out in this debate. Others will come out later.
I share the view of the right hon. Member for Blackburn that this is an area of great anxiety for people, irrespective of their fundamental view one way or the other about the EEC. The matter must be carefully debated and argued.
That is one thing. But going beyond that and saying that the House of Commons should determine these things finally must be totally wrong. I again emphasise that in no way wish to detract from the authority of this House.
I think that suggestion would be impractical. It would also deliberately obtrude into the sovereign decision making responsibilities and obligations of the Council of Ministers. That is what this House has already enacted with regard to Community legislation when we joined, along with other relevant protocols and the Accession treaty.
I also believe that on emotional grounds this House would not be qualified to have other than strong views and opinions. To ask this House to make decisions on these matters—in the light of the economic background of this country and the enomous difficulties facing workers with regard to pay policy, for example—would automatically affect the whole basis on which such decisions were made.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Dykes: I shall not give way for the moment. The fact is that this is a national Paliament—I say this in totally neutral terms—where there is stronger resistance to our membership of the Community, let alone to any of the details of our membership, than there is in any other national Parliament. This House contains a large political contingency group which is against Britain's continued membership of the Community. That is an additional emotional reason why any attempt at reaching a rational decision—principally about the salary levels of European Members, but also about expenses, which are equally important, and in many ways more important—would be bedevilled by complications.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that in this House the last two Governments have given to themselves powers to control wages throughout the whole economy? At the same time that one of the great parties has real doubts about the public sector, the other of the two great parties has real doubts about the efficiency of the private sector. On my hon. Friend's argument, does not that mean that this House is


wholly incapable emotionally of considering all these other questions of salaries?

Mr. Dykes: No. I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood the argument. I am not saying that we should not have the strongest of opinions and views, or wish to give guidance. Indeed, I do not see why the House should not give strong guidance to the Minister—whichever Minister of this somewhat hard-pressed Government it is—who will in due course go along to the Council of Ministers where the decision must and will be made.
I am entirely content and wholly satisfied with the idea that the Council of Ministers should decide this matter. I, too, would not wish to see either the present European Parliament or the future European Parliament decide these matters fully and finally. But that Parliament, too, will have its views. Indeed, views already exist.
We have heard about the Berendts working party. But in order to put the picture in a balanced and correct way it is important to emphasise that the opinions expressed, particularly by German politicians, about the future level of salaries are in no way codified or established decisions that have been taken by either the European Parliament working party or one of the permanent Standing Committees of the Parliament.
I am glad about that. It would be wholly wrong if the existing unelected Parliament were to have other than views and opinions. It would be quite wrong to seek to interfere in decisions which belong to another institution—the supreme decision-making body of the Community, the Council of Ministers.
I hope that I have established that point at least to the satisfaction of some hon. Members. As a former Member of the existing European Parliament I fully understand and share the serious anxieties of Labour Members below the Gangway, and others, about the danger of this international organisation, through all sorts of pressures from other member States, moving towards excessive salaries and allowances.
But I myself cannot put my finger on what "excessive" means, or on what the right level of salaries and allowances

should be. All I would say is that I believe that the salaries should be set at a modest level which is lower than the highest salary existing in any of the existing national Parliaments of the member States.
Without specifying a particular figure—not because it is embarrassing, but because at this stage I think it is impractical to do so—I would link that argument to the argument that this House ought to face up to the fact that in this sovereign Parliament a Member of Parliament serves a smaller constituency than a European Member of Parliament will.
None the less, without causing too much laughter, I believe that all the pragmatic evidence suggests that we work probably harder and longer hours than any of the other Community countries, partly because of our existing parliamentary system, partly because of the amount of legislation, and partly because of the traditions that have developed, I regard all these as wholly desirable. In addition, in welfare terms we look after our constituents in a more developed and intensive way than that which obtains in any other member State.
For all those reasons, too, this House will in due course have to face the reality that the salaries of British Members of Parliament are too low and that that fact should be a legitimate part of the wider debate about parliamentary salaries in Europe as a whole.
If a case can be established, after sufficient argument and debate, for a salary which is at a sufficiently high level—without being excessive—to reflect the geographical and constitutional responsibilities of future Members of the European Parliament, it is clear that the figure will undoubtedly be based on a higher level than that of the existing British parliamentary salary. Many people would say that it was on the low side, bearing in mind that many hon. Members are in financial difficulties as a result of the parliamentary salary in this country having fallen behind the level of parliamentary salaries elsewhere and, for that matter, any other commensurate salary in this country. In other words, there will be pressure also for our national parliamentary salary to be higher. That painful decision will face this House in due course. It cannot be postponed for ever.


At the moment, of course, it is complicated by the incomes policy and the rest of it, and that is understandable.
But then, too, the House has to consider and advise the Government, though again leaving the decision to be made elsewhere in due course, about what should be done in relation to the total financial package affecting future Members of the European Parliament. As a Member of the European Parliament for a little more than two years, I thought that the biggest danger was not only that the common level established meant that there was a big difference in the financial benefits affecting Members from the different countries—partly because of the different financial performances of the member States, but also because the allowances were too high in relation to the duties—but also, as probably the right hon. Member for Blackburn will agree, despite the domestic nexus that she has in this connection, that the way in which the allowances system works in the existing European Parliament is positively to encourage excessive attendance in what is a part-time Assembly with only consultative powers and very limited legislative powers.
The built-in effect of the expenses system is conducive to an attendance which goes beyond the necessary attendance in what is now a part-time body. When the new directly elected Parliament is established, I suppose that the tendency will be for the work to be more intensive and for the attendance ratios each week to go up. That will naturally flow from whatever Parliament it is in due course, with its activities and functions.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman has reminded us on at least three occasions that he was a Member of the European Assembly, and he has just commented on the unnecessary attendance there. As an hon. Member of this House, has he himself been guilty of the practice of attending unnecessarily in order to claim expenses? Secondly, bearing in mind the depths to which he has sunk in referring to the husband of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), will he say whether he himself intends to be a candidate in any future election for the European Assembly?

Mr. Dykes: The hon. Gentleman asks two separate questions, and I shall deal with them in turn.
I may have been misunderstood. I meant not that Members deliberately sought to attend artificially, but that there was that unconscious effect, because of the way in which the expenses system had been constructed. However, I am making no allegations in respect of individual hon. Members. I suggest merely that it is a tendency given the present system, and I was going on to say that, whatever was done in the future, the system should be constructed in a different way. I should like to see more provided "in kind" on a strictly supervised basis. I believe, for example, that Members of the Bundestag in Federal Germany carry a plastic card or ticket which enables them to travel on trains throughout the Republic on a discretionary basis. That may be going too far, but perhaps it would be better to provide facilities of that kind rather than providing cash hand-outs.
5.45 p.m.
I do not think that I was sinking to a new low in asking the question that I did. I was not asking it in any mischievous sense, and I assure the House that I was not making any direct criticism of the right hon. Member for Blackburn or of her distinguished husband. I think that it was a perfectly fair question, because it is important for this House to get these matters in perspective.
There is a dilemma in the Labour Party. The Socialist Group is now the largest group in the European Parliament, and it has a substantial contingent of British Labour Members who therefore use the existing system of expenses and allowances in the European Parliament. Not for any sinister reason, I find the existing system of allowances and the way that it is organised rather questionable. It is important for the House and the public to have that in mind and to know what the right hon. Member for Blackburn and other Labour Members think about it, especially when there is a specific domestic connection. I hope, too, that the basis for the future for expenses flowing from the decision of the Council of Ministers will be very strictly controlled, with some kind of body to act as an arbiter between the Council of


Ministers making future decisions on these matters and the European Parliament.

Mr. Rooker: What about my other question?

Mr. Dykes: I am coming to that.
That, therefore, poses very important constitutional problems for the future European Parliament, because it will be difficult for that directly elected Parliament to say as time goes on in the long-term future "Yes. The original sovereignty of the Council of Ministers on these matters still remains". That is a conflict which will have to be resolved.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) may find his other question fascinating and interesting, and I have no doubt that it will be used as a ploy by Government supporters sitting below the Gangway. For all politicians the only answer is that the future in respect of these matters is unascertainable. I have already made it clear on a number of occasions that I am very attached to the House of Commons to the extent that my electors wish to continue to elect me. That is the only answer that I can give.
Who knows what the future may hold for the hon. Member for Perry Barr? He may be a distinguished Minister in 25 years, if ever a Labour Government are elected in the future. He may be defeated in Perry Barr and have to do something else. He may change his mind about Europe and decide to stand in the second direct elections under a PR system. He may even wish to emulate the husband of the right hon. Member for Blackburn and go to the other House. All sorts of possible consequences would follow from that both for him and for the Parliamentary Labour Party.
I am tempted to ask the hon. Gentle man, if he is defeated at the next General Election, which I expect, what he intends to do with himself. I shall be happy to give way if he is prepared to say. Apparently he prefers not to answer the question.

Mr. Brian Gould: The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has given a number of instances which can only be described as matters of prediction. I think that my hon. Friend

the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was asking about the hon. Gentleman's current intentions.

Mr. Dykes: As I said, I am deeply attached to the House of Commons. That does not contradict my equal attachment to British membership of the European Community. I think that the two go hand in hand. I hope that when he winds up the debate the Minister, in decisively rejecting this new clause which is ultra vires and cannot be operated in practical terms—

Mr. Budgen: It is certainly not ultra vires.

Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend should not think that there is anything sinister or alarming in my calling the new clause ultra vires. Perhaps I used the wrong words—I am not a lawyer. I simply maintain that it cannot be operated in practical terms. When the Minister concludes the debate and rejects the idea of the new clause because of its inherent practical difficulties, I hope that he will not just say that the Council of Ministers is still considering these matters. I hope that he will give us the Government's views about the right kind of salary in the future, and the likely structure of expenses and allowances that they would like to see. That will help the House a great deal.
I believe that there will be far more interest in the European direct elections than many Labour Members will admit. They will be very fed up when campaigning and energetic politicians generate public interest, and indeed fascination in these elections. When the election campaign begins the candidates will have to answer questions about salaries and allowances. They will have to give answers that are decisive and reflect the facts when the Government come back with the decision of the Council of Ministers. The public will accept that. I do not see why Labour Members below the Gangway are so reluctant to accept it.

Mr. Michael Stewart: It seems generally agreed that the decision about salaries must be made unanimously by the Council of Ministers at the end of the day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Filibustering".] It is typical throughout these debates that the usual line of argument of those who oppose British membership of the EEC is that those of us who are in


favour are crooks who are acting for all the wrong motives. As I was saying, it seems generally agreed that the decision on salaries will be made unanimously by the Council of Ministers. Therefore, I am surprised that there should be any question about it. This is plain from the Treaty and other sources.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but he has just made a serious statement. I do not think that he is a crook. I think that he is wrong about the Common Market, but I have hardly suggested that because of that he is a crook. I do not know of any of my hon. Friends who have made such a suggestion. I do not think that that is the sort of emotive language that we should use in this House.

Mr. Stewart: I shall try to restrain my notoriously emotive language to the levels used by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
Practically everyone who has spoken dislikes this clause and has suggested that what we are interested in is the salary that Members of the European Parliament ultimately will draw. Hon. Members have suggested that I am filibustering. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton is trying to prolong my speech.
The decision on salaries will need the concurrence of the British Minister. That is a ministerial act, open to criticism and scrutiny in the House of Commons. One has only to look at the way in which the House controls Ministers. There is the ultimate sanction of defeating the Government. I can hardly see even a very indignant House of Commons defeating the Government on this issue. Also, very fierce criticism can be directed against a particular Minister over a particular act. In this case the act will be agreeing to a certain scale of salaries. If a criticism of that kind is made before the Minister has committed the act, this could have some effect.
There are a few instances in which a particular ministerial act could not be carried out without the express sanction of the House. These are very rare, for obvious reasons. If they were not, it would be impossible for Ministers to go about their business at all. Hon. Members may well ask whether this ministerial act of agreeing in the Council to a par-

ticular scale of salaries, should be one of those acts on which express approval of the House of Commons is required. Common sense and knowledge of administration dictate that the answer must be "no".
My right hon. Friend the Members for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) Pointed out that when a decision was made allowances at the United Nation there was no question of that decision requiring the express approval of the House. This is an important point. The United Nations and the EEC are only two of the international organizations to which we belong. All international organization incur expenses which are shared among the nations, part of which are borne by the British taxpayers. The British Minister has to take responsibility for helping to meet these expenses I do not know of a single case where anyone ever suggested that it was necessary that these should require the express approval of the House of Commons.

Mr. Spearing: But they are elected.

Mr. Stewart: The fact that they are elected means that this is less necessary. There is another area of criticism that can be piled upon them from their constituents.

Mr. Budgen: If the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) disapproves of this suggested method of control, does he think that there should be another method?

Mr. Stewart: This is not necessary because this is a ministerial act which, like other ministerial acts, is subject to criticism and comment in this House. It could be dealt with in the same way as the question of expenses of hon. Members attending other international organisations has been dealt with in the past. It has been quite satisfactory before, and I do not see the need for anything different now.
Suppose it were agreed that a salary scale should be paid to Members of the European Parliament. Candidates for that Parliament campaigning during the direct elections would get caustic comments from the public on this matter.
It is true that the Member of the European Parliament is, in a sense, a new kind of creature. Some of my hon.


Friends who are more to the Left of the party seem to have enormous difficulty in absorbing any idea that they have not heard before. I draw to their attention the fact that we are introducing a new kind of person in having direct elections. We shall see as time goes by how best to fit him into our institutions and to stretch our institutions to contain this new element. English institutions have always been elastic; that is why they have survived. They will have to stretch in order to contain the relationship between the new Member of the European Parliament and Members of this House. That problem still has to be solved, and a great deal of the solving will not be done by this House or by scrutinising the European Members' salaries. It will be done through the political parties.
6.0 p.m.
The new creature, the Member of the European Parliament, will be a member of a political party. His actions, or lack of them, will be subject to examination by fellow members of his party, just as our actions are subject to examination by fellow members of his party, just as and that is quite right, too.
I shall not pursue that matter, because it is beyond the immediate purpose of the new clause. What the clause does is to pick out a particular ministerial act, that of agreeing to a scale of salaries, and to put it under an exceptionally heavy parliamentary sanction of a kind that we would never have dreamt of using in respect of any other act involving the payment of money to people in this House who serve in international organisations.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the real purpose of the amendment is simply to make the whole process of bringing the European Parliament into existence as cumbrous, laborious and as long as possible. Hon. Members who take that view are entitled to do so, but I wish that sometimes they would not dress it up with all this solemn stuff about defending the British constitution, when all they are trying to do is to obstruct British membership of the EEC. On that matter I remain implacably opposed to them.

Sir Anthony Royle: The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr.

Stewart) has put his finger on the pulse of this debate. The remarks of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), which appeared to be steeped in an aura of envy and malice, were unnecessary and were not true. She seemed to imply that new Members of the European Parliament would be responsible to no constituents. She suggested that such Members, with constituencies of 500,000 people, would be useless in their efforts to influence events or to be responsible to their constituents.
I cannot accept that proposition. I believe that the Members of the European Parliament will be just as responsible to their constituencies as we are in the Westminster Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said that in the United States many constituencies are larger than the constituencies that we shall see in the European Parliament.
The fact is that each Member of Parliament will be responsible for his behaviour and attitudes to his own constituents In addition, the Council of Ministers will be responsible for agreeing the size of salaries and allowances granted to Members of the European Parliament. If the Westminster Parliament disapproves or dislikes the size of the salaries or allowances that are about to be agreed by the Council of Ministers in Brussels, it is able to bring to account in this Chamber the responsible Minister.
I feel as strongly as does the right hon. Member for Fulham that that is the place where the salaries of European Members of Parliament should be fixed.
I do not want to speak for too long, but I should like to raise one specific subject which has not been touched upon in the debate so far. I refer to the subject of taxation. It will be helpful to have the Minister's views on this matter when he replies to this debate.
Is it the Government's intention that when discussions take place in the Council of Ministers on the amount payable to the European Members of Parliament, that salary should be taxed at the national level of taxation in each individual country, or at the level at which European civil servants are taxed in the EEC, or should there be no tax at all? What is the Minister's view on this point? It is important. Members of the Westminster


Parliament receive a salary on which they are taxed at normal United Kingdom rates and emoluments from other sources are taken into account. They also receive allowances such as the London living allowance, and research assistant and secretarial allowances, which are not taxed. It may be that European Members of Parliament will also receive allowances on a similar or greater scale, but the point about taxation is important.
There will be considerable concern in this country if it is seen that a Member of a European Parliament is paid a large salary that is not subject to any taxation at all. There will also be concern if Members of the European Parliament receive salaries or remuneration taxed at low levels compared to those maintained in the equivalent national Parliaments. I hope that the Minister will deal with these points when he replies.
I am not prepared to support the new clause. I believe that it is wrong and ill-onceived—indeed, that it has been conceived merely as a means to make it more difficult to bring the European Parliament into being. I consider that the arrangement for deciding the level of salaries of European Members of Parliament should remain, as in the treaty, with the Council of Ministers, those Ministers being responsible to their national Parliaments for the results which they reach in Brussels.

Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle) raised this debate from the somewhat squalid level to which it had been reduced in the last hour or so.
The remarks that I shall make will probably be more pointed because I am a Member for the present Assembly in Europe. I have increasing misgivings about the principle of direct elections. It appears that the original ideals which inspired the pioneers of the European Community have been steadily eroded by the harsh realities of national self-interest.
I do not know whether hon. Members have read a recent article by John Palmer in The Guardian. He dealt with the accusations that Britain was adopting a wrecking role in the Community. The author found that charge unjustified, and said in that article:

The simple truth is that the Common Market is not, never has been, and probably never will be an international community which is somehow independent of national interests and national pressures.
One sees that view justified on almost every day one sits in the Assembly.
I hope the House will forgive me if I give one or two recent examples. The first that comes to mind has appeared in our newspapers, and is what I regard as somewhat unseemly. It involves the inevitable competition between the Nine over the site of the permanent building for the directly elected Parliament.
Members of the Aseembly now commute between Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg simply because the Council of Ministers cannot agree on a single permanent site. There is a conflict—almost an insoluble conflict—of national interests. Hon. Members who have visited Strasbourg will remember the recently built super new building which cost the French taxpayers an awful lot of money. Yet in that magnificent building the refreshment facilities for staff and Members are worse than anything experienced in the British Army.
The simple reason is that the native restaurateurs have made it clear to the French Government that they want no competition in the Parliament building. Therefore, Members and staff have to eat like pigs in order for the restaurateurs outside the building to engage in a lucrative trade.
The same is true of the transport facilities to and from Strasbourg. They are on a par with the dining facilities. The building was opened with considerable panache by the French President as a prestige and virility symbol, indicating the determination of France to have the permanent site for the directly elected Assembly.
In an effort not to be outdone, the Luxembourg Government decided unilaterally, and without consulting anyone, to get in on the act. A month or two ago, I was surreptitiously shown plans for an enormous building adjoining the existing European Parliament building in Luxembourg. Some details were given in the official European Parliament Report, No. 43 for February 1978.
The building was designed by the French architect who engineered what I


inelegantly call the "cock-up" of the Olympic stadium in Montreal. There was no international architectural competition for the building, which is going up 500 feet in Luxembourg. There were plans, it is reputed, for individual offices for the 410 Members. It was rumoured that these lush apartments were to be rent-free, but I gather that they are to be available at commercial rents. The only people who will be able to afford them will be the top Eurocrats who receive very high, virtually tax-free, salaries. The rumoured cost of all this nonsense is between £60 million and £75 million and it will probably be double that by the time it is finished.
Who is going to pay for this building? How is the money to be raised? I asked these questions and was told that a consortium of Luxembourg banks was putting up the money on a speculative basis. I said that I could not believe that. Hon. Members can imagine the reaction of British banks if we suggested that they should put up a speculative parliamentary building on the site of the dockland slums. However, I had it on good authority that the banks were persuaded to cough up the cash.
My well-informed sources told me that banks in Luxembourg are licensed annually by the Ministry for the Middle Class. In a country with a population of fewer than 500,000, the middle class must all be bankers. The Ministry has an army of snoopers to see how the banks behave and to warn them that if they misbehave, their licences will be withdrawn. That threat has been used to extract the cash from the banks for the new building.
It is extremely difficult to get to the bottom of this sort of thing, because there is no controlling committee in the European Parliament to extract the information. If it happened here, I could ask the Public Accounts Committee, the Comptroller and Auditor General, or the Expenditure Committee, of which I used to be Chairman, to demand—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing the expenses and salaries of Members of the European Assembly.

Mr. Hamilton: Nothing is more relevant to that than what I am saying. The machinery provided by this Parlia-

ment for the control of expenditure is, heaven knows, inadequate enough, but it is the acme of perfection compared with what we have in Europe. If that situation pertains with these scandals, it will also pertain to the expenses and allowances that will be given to Members of a directly elected Assembly.
The new clause underlines the fact that we want some control. It may not provide the right method of control, but I am wholly in sympathy with the principle underlying it. The Minister must not shoot it down because it proposes the wrong method. He must produce a way of giving this House accountability for these matters.
6.15 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) made a rather mischievous speech, though I would probably have made the same speech in his position. The figures that he gave were substantially true. By Westminster standards, the expenses allowed for Members of the European Assembly are exceedingly generous. They are not yet on the scale of the Royal annuities, but they are getting on that way. However, the expenses are not generous by European standards and we must understand that if people from this country are to operate in the European Parliament, they must operate on European standards.
Nothing annoys me more than when this House puts on its hair shirt to discuss parliamentary salaries and expenses. We talk about them desperately in the privacy of the Tea Room and say that we want the Boyle recommendations implemented in full, but in the Chamber we vie with one another in being as mean as possible to each other because the Press are listening and reporting us. There is an element of hypocrisy in these matters.
I can add to the information given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby. In addition to the expenses and allowances which he mentioned, foreign travel is also available. Members of the Assembly have made several visits to the United States, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Scandinavia, Spain and Uruguay. In general, the more anti-Common Market the sentiments of the Member, the more enthusiastic he is to go on these travels. I could mention


names of Members of this House who are guilty of that.
However, this sort of thing happens here, too. Foreign travel is available to hon. Members and these facilities will be used or abused according to the inclinations and judgments of individual Members. We cannot avoid that.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Mr. Dykes) talked about people getting cash by going on unnecessary journeys. The same sort of thing happens in this House. We know that there are malingerers and scroungers in this House. None is in the Chamber at present, but we all know them. But that should not condemn the whole place, and the same is true in Europe.
I agree that there will be people who will exploit the system, whether by not attending and drawing a salary, through their expenses, or in foreign travel. That is in the nature of a democratic organisation. The important thing is that they should be accountable to their electors or to the body that sponsored them in the first place.
We are trying to establish satisfactory machinery to give us some control and a method of regulating the expenses and salaries of the people that British electors send to the European Parliament. Because there are abuses, we should not condemn British Members, as has nearly been done in this debate, as being dishonest or unworthy. At the end of the day, their electors will find them out and kick them out. I have seen that happen in this House.
I agree with the main purpose of the new clause. The taxpayers of this country, through the House of Commons, should have some control over, or at least be able to comment on, the scale of salaries and other emoluments paid to European Members. I do not believe that it is practical or desirable to make them second-class citizens. There is a European scale of income and we must accept that, at present, we are bottom of the table. That may be a good or a bad thing, but one of the uses of the Common Market is to harmonise upwards and if that applies in one area, it must apply in others.
If we accepted the principle that it is desirable that our representatives should be second-class citizens, I do not believe

that many people would accept the justice of that.
The salary for European Members that has been commonly bandied around is £25,000 a year. That is roughly four times as much as our salary. If we get a dual mandate, how on earth can I or any of my hon. Friends—it may be that Opposition Members will be able to get away with it—campaign in the industrial belt of central Scotland, or in the North-East or North-West, on the basis "Elect me and I shall have a salary of £25,000 a year in Europe and £6,000 a year in the House of Commons, much of which will be tax free"? I can imagine the response of my electors. I hasten to say that I am not standing for election to the European Parliament. I have just outlined one of the reasons that leads me not to stand. I do not believe that any man is worth that amount of cash to represent ordinary working people.
I have the deepest foreboding about this development. I have met and talked to several potential candidates on both sides of the House and to others outside the House. I shall quote a remark of one such candidate, and I think that it speaks for itself. I quote directly from the European Parliament Report. A few weeks ago a reverend gentleman from Northern Ireland visited the Assembly. The report of February 1978 reads:
After the visit, Dr. Paisley told the Press that he was still opposed to the Community; but that would not stop him standing for the European Parliament.
That speaks for itself.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that every potential candidate of whatever party should make it clear to his electorate whether, if a Member of this House, he is likely to seek candidature for the elections should they take place? Does he not think that it is the duty of every hon. Member to make that clear to the public and to the electorate?

Mr. Hamilton: There are too many guidelines laid down in this place. I am not laying one down.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) underlines the point made earlier by the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) about the determination of some of the opponents of this measure to attribute to those


who support it the most unworthy personal motives. Before the hon. Member for Newham, South intervenes again, and before the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rushes back into the Chamber to ask me about my position, I make it clear that I have no intention in the foreseeable future to stand as a candidate for the European Parliament.
I have no intention of following the interesting remarks of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) about the extravagance of the buildings provided for the European Parliament and the housing of its Members. I accept that his comments were revelant.
I merely say that on my visits to the European Parliament I have been struck by the extravagance and the cost to public funds of the travelling backwards and forwards between Luxemburg and Strasbourg that is imposed on the European Parliament. There is the ridiculous position of the worthy burghers of those two cities, supported by their Governments, vying with each other to try to provide the Parliament's housing and accommodation. The sooner the Parliament is transferred to Brussels, where it will be alongside the other institutions of the Community, the better. That would also facilitate an increase in the powers of the European Parliament, which I believe is an important object of the Bill.
I deal with the main arguments of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) about the possible extravagance of Members' pay and allowances. Throughout our proceedings on the Bill I have rarely been in agreement with the hon. Gentleman and those of his hon. Friends who have put their names to the new clause. However, on this occasion I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's argument.
I accept that there is genuine public concern about the possible level of pay and allowances that new Euro-Members will receive. It is important that hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper), my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and myself should express our concern. That is because there is sometimes a deliberate attempt—sometimes it is accidental—to confuse the argument about whether we should have directly

elected European Members with arguments about their pay. That goes back to the business of trying to suggest that everyone who is in favour of direct elections is in favour of incredible pay and extravagance for himself or his friends out in the European Parliament.
Those are two separate issues. It is possible—it is my position—to be strongly in favour of directly elected Members but equally strongly of the view that it is wrong to pay them extravagant and absurd salaries once they are there.
The figures that we have so far dealt with, and certainly the figures that have appeared in the Press, which tends to be where the precise figures come from, are pure speculation. They are probably not totally unreal, although they are somewhat exaggerated compared with the expectations of some who are trying to be elected to the European Parliament.
The most spectacular figures are always arrived at by making a calculation of the payment of Members of the German Bundestag, the highest paid parliamentarians in Europe, assuming that Euro-Members will not be paid less than the Germans, and finally basing the calculation on the payment of Community tax, which is a low rate of direct taxation.
That sort of calculation produces absurd figures even compared with the pay of the Prime Minister and other Ministers in this place. It also produces absurd figures when we consider the actual earnings by way of pay and salary of almost anyone in any position in employment in this country.
Such comparisons lead one to reflect on the fantastically high levels of direct taxation that obtain in the United Kingdom. If Community levels of tax were applied, some of the Members of the European Parliament would be among the wealthiest individuals in the United Kingdom in terms of their earnings from employment. That would be unacceptable and would do great harm to the standing and prestige of the European Parliament in the eyes of the public.

Mr. Roger Moate: My hon. Friend asserted that Members of the European Parliament would pay Community tax. Will he give the ground for that assertion? I understand that we are still hoping to hear from the Minister whether that is the position.

Mr. Clarke: I was making that assumption, but I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter. I was making the assumption on the basis that other employees of the Community at present pay Community tax. I assume that the new Members of the European Parliament will be in the same position and that they will not pay national tax to any country. No doubt the Minister will make matters clear when he replies.

Sir Anthony Royle: I am puzzled by one remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) concerning the employees of the Community. Surely the newly elected Members of the European Parliament could not in any way be described as employees of the Community. Did he mean to say that?

Mr. Clarke: I am making the supposition that they will be employees of the Community in the sense that we are employees of central Government. We are not actually employees, but we are paid out of central funds and we pay PAYE. For pay and tax purposes we treat ourselves as Government employees. The new Members of the European Parliament will be paid out of Community funds. I assume that their pay cheques will come from Community funds. Therefore, they will probably be treated as Community servants as regards liability to taxation, although they will in fact be answerable only to their electors.
The hon. Member for Famworth made a helpful contribution and emphasised that there is real ministerial responsibility for the level of pay. The debate will give us the opportunity of hearing the Minister put forward the Government's view on the approach that should be adopted to the pay of European Members.
To allow the Minister to deal with the matter, I repeat the suggestion that I made on Second Reading. I said that in the first few years the pay of European Members of Parliament should be linked directly to the pay of the Members of their national parliaments. I suggested that the British Members' pay should be linked to the pay of the Members of the House of Commons. With respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser), I believe that

that is the best way of dealing with any link through pay with this House. The House will recall that my right hon. Friend suggested that salaries should be paid through the Fees Office. If the pay of British Members of the European Parliament were linked to the pay of Members of the House of Commons, they would have a more direct link with Members of this place and there would be a greater community of interest.
I believe that my suggestion would have other advantages. The first advantage, which is not far from my mind, is that it would help to underline the extremely low level of pay that the House of Commons, which is responsible for its own salaries, insists on imposing on itself.
The British Members of the European Parliament would be scandalously underpaid compared with the representatives of France and Germany. If that had the effect of finally stimulating the House of Commons, which is not able to look after its own salaries let alone those of others, to bring its salaries more into line with what should be regarded as the proper level, that would do no harm. It would also give us the best yardstick to hand to judge the value which we put on parliamentarians in this country anyway. It seems to me that it would be wholly wrong if the payment to European Members were completely out of line with the payment to British Members of Parliament.
6.30 p.m.
Moreover, I hope that some comparisons would be made between the facilities available to Members of the European Parliament and facilities for Members of this House, since, again, I am certain that any comparisons would simply underline the quite disgraceful way in which we deprive ourselves of many of the basic facilities that a parliamentarian should have if he is to carry out the duties that the public expect of him. That is my specific proposal, and I await the Minister's response with interest.
My other reason for wanting the question of salaries for European Members cleared up is that, for so long as there remains even the speculation about massive salaries, the issue will be used by such people as the hon. Member for Sowerby—I know his views—as quite the best stick with which to beat the European


Parliament and the European Community—at least, for the purpose of getting reported in the tabloid Press. In my view, there is a heavier duty on Members who are enthusiastic about our membership of the Community to get rid of this red herring as soon as possible and ensure that we can demonstrate to the public that the level of salary is reasonable.
It has been clear from the debate that, as the right hon. Member for Fulham said, the amendment is far more directed to trying to put yet a nother stumbling block in the way of membership than it is to any genuine concern about the way the House of Commons controls salaries. Most hon. Members who have spoken would not vote European Members more than tuppence if the matter came before the House because they would use the occasion as another opportunity to try to stop the elections taking place.
As one listens to some hon. Members express their views about these salaries, it is interesting to note how the issue brings out in Socialist anti-Marketeers of the Left a unique combination of their bitterest feelings about wealth and about Europe and stimulates them to excesses in which they do not otherwise indulge. The idea that at one and the same time, on one amendment, one can attack Europe and attack high pay is found irresistible by some hon. Members on the Government Back Benches.
It was typical of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—I am sorry that she has left us—that her one and only intervention in the entire proceedings on this major constitutional Bill was to come here and create a scene about the pay and expenses which other parliamentarians might get in Europe. She did not mince her words. It is not her practice to mince her words here or anywhere else. She described them, I think, as "wallowing in a gravy train", and she worked herself up into an ever greater frenzy about the wealthy life of ease which these Members will be able to enjoy.
The performance of the right hon. Lady shows how dangerous this issue can be in public campaigning, since it enables anti-Europeans to batten on to the envy and malice which motivate

rather too many of our people and to exploit those feelings in the manner which the right hon. Lady adopted in her speech. Indeed, the whole debate has been permeated by such notions as the allegation by the hon. Member for Sowerby, which he really ought not to make, that the present Members of the European Assembly are fiddling their expenses and that the same would continue if Memberes were directly elected under the arrangements proposed.

Mr. Marten: I think that there is a certain justification for the feeling that that sort of thing might happen. For example, the Commissioners, when they retire after having been in office for five years, on a salary of, I think £45,000 a year, receive for three years after they retire a transitional allowance of £20,000. It is that sort of thing which arouses peoples' suspicions that the same might happen after direct elections.

Mr. Clarke: The pay and conditions of senior managers, senior civil servants and politicians in Europe are totally unlike those in this country, and, while they may be extravagant, I think that our attitude towards the pay of responsible people in this country is thoroughly misguided. I suspect that, in any context other than European matters, my hon. Friend might well agree with me about that.
However, that intervention only underlines my point—I endorse what the right hon. Member for Fulham said—that it is an unfortunate feature of all our debates on European matters that many of the opponents of our membership constantly suggest that, for example, our Commissioners and others who have taken an enthusiastic interest in Europe are motivated by personal greed.

Mr. Marten: Not at all.

Mr. Clarke: I do not agree with many of the actions of our present Prime Minister, but I have never sought to attack him for any action which he takes on the ground that he does it to draw an excessive salary. In my view, no such attitude should underlie our political discussions either on the present subject or on anything else.

Mr. Madden: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I hope that no one will accuse me of filibustering if I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Madden: Far be it from me to accuse the hon. Gentleman of filibustering. I wish merely to ask him whether, on reflection, he will withdraw his charge against me. My concern, as I demonstrated in my speech, was against the payment of the flat-rate allowances which are made to the present Members of the European Assembly—which will be made to future Members—and the very loose monitoring arrangement over the payment of allowances.
Does the hon. Gentleman know that the present budget of the Assembly is £28 million, and it is estimated to increase by 50 per cent. in the first year? That amount is considerably greater than the amount involved in the abuse of our social security system which his hon. Friends daily condemn. My remarks shade into nothing compared with the condemnation which we hear from his Benches about the abuse of social security.

Mr. Clarke: I do not want to go into that with the hon. Gentleman now, but as it happens, I agree that the present monitoring arrangements are unsatisfactory. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not make any specific charge against him, but I thought that his speech consisted of a long series of illustrations of the way that Members are drawing travelling expenses for journeys which do not cost the amount which they are able to claim, which seemed to me to be a suggestion that there was widespread fiddling in the ordinary layman's sense of that term. I do not regard that as helpful.
As regards an increase in Assembly expenditure, since there is to be a dramatic increase in the number of Members following the introduction of direct elections, one can only regard a dramatic upsurge in the planned budget as rather prudent budgeting and not very remarkable.
I return directly to the amendment, having stressed that I share much of the concern about the potential pay of Members of the European Parliament. It does not seem to me to serve the purpose which has been constantly reiterated throughout the debate that Members of this Parliament should have a continuing response-

bility It would have only a once-and-for-all effect and it is significant that it would require only another resolution to be passed on one ocasion before the Bill came into effect.
That seems to me to be an example of the inordinate length to which their objection is taken by those who are opposed to the Bill in any case. It is solemnly suggested that the entire direct election arrangements, which have been approved by the House on massive majorities, should be held up until the House of Commons has finalised its view on salaries.

Mr. Marten: Why not?

Mr. Clarke: I have expressed my strong concern on this subject, but I think it paranoid to suggest that a major constitutional measure should be held up for the House of Commons to give its view on the first salaries to be paid to Members, involving a sum which, compared with the public expenditure which goes through on the nod here on so many occasions, is no substantial piece of public expenditure. It cannot be said that we are discussing the most significant constitutional point at stake in the Bill.
That leads me to the conclusion—it is easily reached when one looks at the amendments which have been put down by the particular collection of Members whose names have appeared on the Paper—

Mr. Marten: Oh, come on!

Mr. Clarke: —that what we are really doing under the guillotine is conducting the same debate as we have had throughout the entire proceedings on the Bill, with the same arguments, sometimes presented in not very different words, to try to stop the clear majority of the House of Commons from having its way and improving the European Parliament by allowing Members to be directly elected.

Mr. David Stoddart: I have been surprised at the number of Members, including the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who have criticised the motives of those who support the new clause. Supporters of the new clause have been accused of introducing a clause designed to wreck the Bill. Members making that allegation have


obviously not been following the Order Paper. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe is not listening, but is merely nattering when I am referring to him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Let us get on with it.

Mr. Stoddart: I am getting on with it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But the hon. Member for Rushcliffe made certain allegations about the motives of those whose names appear in support of the new clause. I want him to hear the facts.
The hon. Member for Rushcliff e got it all wrong. Had he been following the Order Paper, he would have seen that the new clause had been on it for a number of weeks with only one name on it—my own. I make no pretence to being other than an anti-Marketeer, but I assure the hon. Member for Rushcliffe and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) and others who have criticised our motives, that the new clause was put down for very good reasons quite unconnected with wanting to wreck the Bill.
First, I still believe—indeed, during the debate, that belief has been strenghened—that the House of Commons must maintain and be seen to maintain its supremacy. The best way for it to do that is to ensure that it has a say in and, indeed, decides the salaries of United Kingdom representatives at the European Assembly. In other words, he who pays the piper calls the tune. That is an entirely good reason for tabling the new clause.
Secondly, I felt that it was essential, before any election took place, that the electors should know exactly how much was to be paid to the people they were to elect. That is an entirely reasonable demand. It is a reasonable expectation on the part not only of myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends whose names appear on the new clause, but of the electorate.
Thirdly, it is desirable that those standing for election should know exactly how much they will be paid and what their expenses will be. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe will be only too glad to agree with that reasoning.
Those are three of the major reasons for putting down the new clause. I hope that, with that explanation, those who have accused my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself of trying to wreck the Bill will withdraw that accusation.
I have to confess that when I tabled the new clause I had heard a good deal of disquiet expressed about reports that had been circulated regarding the levels of salaries being considered by the working group in Europe. It is entirely reasonable that hon. Members and people throughout the country should express disquiet at these very high salaries which are expected to be paid to Members of the directly elected European Assembly. When we consider the salaries that have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), who so ably introduced the new clause, it is understandable that people should express concern about them.
6.45 p.m.
Let us consider some of the comparisons. We are told that an Assemblyman will receive between £25,000 and £30,000 per annum, plus expenses. That compares with only £6,270 for Members of this House. What is more—this is perhaps even more serious—we are proposing to pay those high salaries to Assemblymen in Europe, but we pay Members in the other place only £13·50 per day or, if they stay overnight, £16·50 for doing a legislative job.

Mr. William Hamilton: It is too much.

Mr. Stoddart: I do not seek to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), but I should point out that Members in the other place have a legislative function. On Second Reading, the Minister of State said that the powers of the Assembly would be advisory and consultative only. Yet some people are proposing that Assemblymen should be paid very high salaries. At least, the House of Lords has some legislative function. I suggest that if these figures turn out to be correct, we should be paying the Members of the European Assembly far too much for doing far too little.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has expressed his views on this subject, certainly led me to believe


that the salaries of Members of the European Assembly would be fixed not by the Assembly but by the Council of Ministers. That matter has been raised several times today. I think that the House should have an authoritative statement on this subject. I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who I believe may seek to intervene in the debate, will give us his view and reasoning on this aspect of the matter. I am sure that the House will be eager to hear from him.

Mr. Farr: Before commenting on the new clause, I should like to refer to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I thought that he was guilty of exaggeration when, in seeking to justify the high level of salaries for EEC parliamentarians, he said that Westminster does not have facilities comparable with those in the capitals of the other eight nations. I assure the House that is not so. I have visited nearly all of those capitals. From what I have seen, the atmosphere and attitude in most of those august centres is far more akin to a museum than to a working House of Parliament. Certainly the facilities here are superior to what I have seen elsewhere within the Community.
My hon. Friend suggested that the salaries of House of Commons Members were so out of line with the proposed salaries for the new European parliamentarians that there was, therefore, a good argument for increasing Westminster salaries. But what he did not take into account was that, although until 15 or 20 years ago a Member of Parliament here might have been thought occasionally to have other sources of income and possibly another occupation, he is now more or less full-time just as his counterpart elsewhere in the EEC is full-time.
Another factor that my hon. Friend forgot to mention, or probably did not know, was that prices in the other capitals of the EEC are almost double what they are in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the purchasing power of our parliamentary salary is almost equivalent to that of parliamentary salaries in other EEC nations.

Mr. Dykes: Would my hon. Friend reconsider that, because I think that the doubling of equivalent costs in other

capital cities might be regarded as an exaggeration? Even if that were so, the British parliamentary salary would be the equivalent of £12,000-plus which would compare with the German salary, with an expenses element in it, of £25,000.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I do not consider my remark to be exaggerated simply because I have made specific tests myself. Last week, after having served for five years as a member of the Council of Europe, during which I have had ample opportunities of making these tests and examinations very carefully in all 19 capitals—not just seven or eight—I gave it up. I acquired a bit of information in the course of my travels, and I can assure my hon. Friend that if he were to go to Denmark today he should have to spend nearly £10 in Danish currency to buy the equivalent of £5-worth of groceries or household articles today in the shops of London.
I wanted to refer to what the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said when he rather loosely referred to European standards and said on more than one occasion that Britain was at the bottom of what he called the European tax league. He went on to refer to Britain as being in the European league and at the bottom of the European pay league so far as parliamentarians were concerned. That is not so, because in an uncharacteristic way he referred to Europe when presumably he meant not Western Europe but EEC Europe, which is a very narrow Europe. EEC Europe comprises nine nations. The Council of Europe is 20 nations. The Europe referred to on more than one occasion by the hon. Member for Fife, Central, who is not here now, is over 40 nations. It is a gross exaggeration and slipshod, to say the least, continually to refer to our Members of Parliament here as being at the bottom of what he termed the European remuneration league—not tax league—as parliamentarians, when on any assessment we are in the top half-dozen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) also wondered why, in his very interesting remarks, in this country we had, I think he said, the only major party which desired Britain to break with Europe. I can supply him


with the answer to that question. We have a sizeable element of the party in Government who wish Britain to withdraw or to weaken her associations with the EEC, but I can say why that is the only party of any major size within the Nine, though I stand to be corrected. For instance, in any of the five what I shall call minor countries, such as Denmark, Holland, the Republic of Ireland, they have never had it so good. They are tiny countries but they have a say in a big set-up within the EEC. Periodically the Ministers from those tiny countries assume positions of supreme responsibility in running the affairs of the EEC. Therefore, they have nothing very much to lose by leaving and a lot to gain by staying in.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, East wonders why there is not a major party in France. Germany or Italy that wishes its country to withdraw from the EEC. In Italy we have a very funny situation, as my hon. Friend knows probably as well as I do, in which there is a very large Communist Party. That Communist Party cannot be characterised as wishing to see the Community continue.
The number of Communist delegates and senators in Italy today, is nearly equivalent to that of the governing Christian and Social Democratic coalition in Italy. When the time comes—I hope it does not—when the Communists are democratically elected with a majority in Italy, we shall see a very different tune whistled by the Communist Party in Italy. One of the first things that that party will do if it becomes the Government will be to withdraw that country from the EEC. Why should any political party in France wish to withdraw from the EEC or wish its country to withdraw?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I fail to see what the question of future withdrawal of members from the EEC has to do with New Clause 2. I hope that the hon. Member will show me how he can relate it to the purposes of New Clause 2.

Mr. Farr: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, with respect, I do not think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were here when my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East

referred to the different countries who were members of the EEC. He made the point that there was no other country which possessed a party with a large number of persons in it who wished that country to withdraw from membership of the EEC. I was trying to follow up that argument, which your predecessor, Mr. Deputy Speaker, found perfectly acceptable, by saying, possibly very briefly, what I thought was the reason for that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accept the hon. Member's submission that my predecessor in the Chair allowed that discussion. As the occupants of the Chair are never wrong, I agree with what he allowed.

Mr. Farr: I was going to say that there is no earthly reason why any party in the Republic of France should wish that country to withdraw from the EEC. In the last five years as a Member of the Council of Europe, I spent a total of about 250 days in Europe, most of them being in France. Sitting in the middle of the EEC geographically, France is literally sitting pretty. To any political party in France is would be suicide to advocate that country's withdrawal.
I can see you getting restive, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I will conclude by saying that Germany has become the industrial heart of the EEC and is unlikely to wish withdrawal either.
Coming back to the new clause, I should like to say a few words in favour of it. There is a great deal to be said for having a clause of this nature in the Bill. It is right that we should consider what would happen if, for instance, the clause was no concluded. Even if it is included, how will the House of Commons be informed of the proposed salaries and expenses? Does the information for our consideration also include, before we come to a decision on it, the hours and days of work that the European Members of Parliament are going to put in for this remuneration?
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle), who is not here at the moment, mentioned a fundamental point relating to income tax. It is vital that we also note before we consider this sort of matter what the rate of tax would be on the salary of the European parliamentarian, because it is take-home pay that counts.
Another point that I think could possibly be cleared up by the clause being accepted in the Bill, adding possibly a schedule to it in another place, is the question of what will happen if changes are proposed. Should we not have to have a system in which, if any changes in the salaries or expenses were proposed within the European Parliament, we had a chance to scrutinise such changes? It is no use the House putting in this clause and saying "This is the EEC Bill now" if within a week of doing that there has been a change in the proposed remuneration of a European parliamentarian, and we should have to have machinery established whereby we could possibly approve, by order or otherwise, or by some other form of mechanism, any proposed changes.
7.0 p.m.
I favour the idea which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) put forward earlier when he said that the Fees Office should have a big say in the remuneration of European Members of Parliament. There is a great deal to be said for European parliamentarians having salaries and expenses identical to those of their colleagues in Westminster. If the European Member was paid more than his Westminster counterpart, or if more was due to him from the European Parliament authorities, the surplus could be creamed off and placed into the Fees Office fund. If, by any means, the European Member were due to a lesser amount as a result of EEC directives, the deficit would be made up by our Fees Office.
I suggest that this system ought to be subject to the approval of this House, which could be brought about by adding a schedule to the Bill and subsequently introducing an order. It is nonsense to suggest that the European Member of Parliament should be paid any more than his Westminster colleague, since it cannot be said that he is doing a job which is of any more consequence than that which is done by Members of the House of Commons.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: Having had experience of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) during the Committee proceedings of my Private Member's Bill, I know that he is both a lover of nature and someone who likes

to explore the highways and byways of legislation. I shall not follow him on this occasion on any of the highways that you allowed him to explore, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), who originally tabled this new clause, is not present in the Chamber. He has raised an important issue concerning the reason why he tabled the clause. His action was no doubt due to the need, as he saw it, for this House to be able to control a directly elected European Assembly. He felt that the only way to do this was by control of salaries because, to use his own words, he who pays the piper calls the tune. Despite his long experience in this House, my hon. Friend has clearly failed to realise what those of us who are pro-European have repeatedly said, namely that there will be no constitutional way in which this House can control the directly-elected Assembly, which will be responsible, like any elected body, to its own electorate. This new clause, or any other device, would be unable to achieve that constitutional position.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made a strong point about the importance of this issue to those who are not and never will be in favour of our membership of the Common Market. The Machiavellian anti-European strategy on this issue would surely have been to allow the matter to fester and not to discuss it in great detail during the passage of this Bill. The strategy would have been to allow it to come to the fore during the first elections to the Parliament, because there is no question that had it been suddenly sprung upon the British people that the salary of a European Member of Parliament might be about £25,000 there would certainly have been a feeling of revulsion towards the whole idea of European elections and those taking part in them.
In that sense my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon and those who have put their names to the new clause have to be given credit for bringing forward this matter well in time so that those of us in favour of the European Parliament can deal with the issue as frankly as possible. As someone who is in favour of the Common Market, I am naturally anxious that the directly elected Members should have maximum credibility and


that the directly elected Assembly should not be seen to be awash in the gravy train, to use he phrase of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). That is a vital prerequisite if this first directly elected European Parliament, which I am looking forward to seeing on the European scene, is to get off to a proper start and not be surrounded with the squalor of allegation and envy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) raised two issues in his opening speech—those of salaries and expenses. They have to be taken separately. I do not know whether the allegations or the hints that my hon. Friend was making about the expenses currently paid to Members of the European Parliament or the Council of Europe can be confirmed by the hon. Member for Harborough who has told us that he has been a Member of the Council of Europe for some years. Where I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby—and I think all hon. Members, irrespective of their views on Europe, would also agree—is that it is absolutely vital that expenses or allowances should be tightly monitored. In some respects they are not sufficiently tightly monitored in this House. The system in this House at least seems to be a great improvement on that currently prevailing in Europe—as I understand it, never having been a delegate to any of the European bodies. There must be tight monitoring of expenses. I feel sure that that point will get through to the Minister, from all sides and all opinions, and that the Government will be responsive on this issue.
We are faced with a different question when we come to the salary issue. The salary must be relevant to two items. First, it must be relevant to the salaries paid in this country, particularly to hon. Members of this House. Second, it must be relevant to Continental costs. Here I am not talking about costs which will normally be covered by legitimate expenses, but the costs of living on the Continent on a semi-regular or even regular basis. If we select these two criteria we shall be approaching the right kind of determination.
The only issue remaining does not concern any quarrel between the pro-or anti-Marketeers about the level of salary or

even what the salary should be related to. The only remaining question is how the issue is to be determined. The effect of this new clause would be that the House of Commons would have to "consider and approve" the salaries and expenses to be paid to Members of the European Assembly before the Act came into force.
Whatever the intentions of my right hon. and hon. Friends who support the clause, however legitimate those intentions may be—and I accept what they say about that—there is no question but that if we accepted the clause there would be a considerable delay in the passing of the Bill. I think that even my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby would agree that it would not be sufficient merely as a shot in the dark to say "Let's just set the salary at the same level as that of the present British Member of Parliament." That would not be satisfactory. It would not be realistic, and it would not be clear to those who will be standing for the European Parliament.
Therefore, it seems to me far more important that the Government should take from the House today the message that they are expected to negotiate a sensible level of salary for British Members of the European Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) suggested, this need not be exactly the same as the salary of Members from other European countries. As long as the message gets through to the Government that that is what they are supposed to negotiate, I think that the whole question of expenses, the cost of living in Brussels or wherever, can be debated in an atmosphere far removed from that in this Chamber, where more emotive language is sometimes used on this matter.
I put one final suggestion to my hon. Friend the Minister, who is not lacking in suggestions today. He is here to listen to suggestions. We all know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is personally very concerned about this matter. I believe that it would be possible for the British Government to suggest that a provisional level of salary and expenses should be fixed for the first two years of this totally new type of body. We do not know how the Members of the European Parliament will be able to


service their vast constituencies. We do not know what regular travelling they will have to do, whether they will be spending most of their time in Europe, as one would expect, or over here, consulting constituents. There are all sorts of unknown factors.
It should be possible to suggest a provisional salary and expense level, to be carefully monitored for the first two years of the Parliament. There would then have to be consultation with the directly elected Parliament to decide on a final level consistent with what had been discovered to be the costs of the job, after two years of practical experience.

Mr. Moate: I suspect that this will be the only occasion during the progress of the Bill when I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) to a considerable degree.
There have been many allegations during the debate that one's approach to the argument about salaries depends simply on whether one is in favour of direct elections or against, on whether one is a pro-Marketeer or an anti-Marketeer. I have no doubt that those factors have crept into the speeches, but despite that there has been a surprising degree of consensus about the need to resist what have been described as excessive salaries. Many hon. Members who have spoken against the new clause have nevertheless expressed their view that it would be bad for the Common Market and for its image in this country if excessive salaries and excessive expenses were paid. The hon. Gentleman endorsed that.
I like to think that if I were a supporter of the Common Market, which I am not, I would still be very concerned to ensure that salaries were not excessive and that the direct elections were not fought around the issue of how much a Member should be paid. That would be a most unfortunate atmosphere in which to fight an election.
But where the opponents of the new clause have fallen down is in failing to propose any mechanism whereby control of the salaries will be exercised. If this is not our last opportunity, it is nearly the last opportunity for the House to introduce any element of control over the salaries and expenses in the future.
Even those of us who support the new clause should not shirk the fact that there

is a real problem, simply because even those of us who favour low salaries for the Members of the European Parliament must understand that it will be hard to have different classes of Members in Luxembourg, Strasbourg or wherever the Parliament is situated. It will be hard to have a German Member paid £25,000 and a British Member paid £10,000 to £12,000 or whatever.

Mr. Jay: It should be £5,000 to £6,000.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Moate: That is fair enough.
I also accept that Members will have to live in a capital city where expenses will be much higher than in this country. It will be hard to reconcile the differences. But the new clause does not say that Members should be paid at British levels. It says simply that in future the House of Commons should have the final say on what the salary should be.
That would presumably be on a Government motion. The Government and the House would be able to take into account the differences in the cost of living and the need for a sensible level of salaries applying to all Members of the European Parliament. We are saying only that the House should exercise control in future. That need not necessarily be a major deterrent or obstacle to direct elections. The new clause provides a mechanism for control, and I believe that to be very much in the interests of the House and of those that favour direct elections.
We have been told on a number of occasions that control exists. Emphasis has been placed on two particular means of control. We are told that we have power over the Minister, that the decision will be taken in the Council of Ministers and that if he agrees to something of which the House disapproves he will be answerable to the House. We have been told this over and over again, but I have not yet seen any Minister resign over a decision in Brussels to which he agreed. I have seen no decision taken in Brussels overturned because it is unpopular.
The fact is that in the bargaining process in the Council of Ministers a deal is done. It is a fait accompli. When the Minister concerned returns to the House, protests can be ignored. That is


what will happen in this case. It may be the Prime Minister who goes to Brussels, saying in advance that he will not agree to salaries of £25,000 a year, which would be most unreasonable and very unpopular. But he will probably be discussing the matter on the same day as he is bargaining over fisheries and other matters and find that he must concede on the question to win a point on something else. When he returns, all those hon. Members who said that £25,000 or £30,000 was excessive will have to lump it. The Prime Minister will say "I disagree with it, and I am on record as having disapproved of it, but it is done".
The hon. Member for Belper says "Let us have an agreement for a couple of years, just as a paving arrangement". But what happens thereafter? The matter is then out of our control and we shall face what almost everyone would regard as a deplorable position.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) has returned to the Chamber, because I wish to refer to a point that he made. He said that Members of the directly elected Assembly would be answerable to the electors and that if excessive salaries and excessive expenses were paid, the public would express their outrage in the usual way, bringing pressure to bear on Members in their constituencies. How do the public do that? Do they say "We totally disapprove of the fact that you are paid £25,000 or £30,000 a year and therefore we shall not re-elect you"? That would mean that they elect someone else to receive £25,000 or £30,000 a year. That is no means of control. Even if one accepted that the constituencies were meaningful, that there was a direct relationship between the elected Member and the future constituencies, which I do not accept for a moment, I should be very surprised if individual electors made a final decision on the basis of salaries, no matter what anger they expressed.
I return to the point that there has been a surprising degree of consensus about the need to exercise some control to avoid excesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said it and my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said it. Almost all those in favour of direct elec-

tions have said that we must somehow prevent excesses. But they have not told us how they intend to do it. They should be as good as their word. They should support the new clause, because it provides simply for future House of Commons control. They should ask the Government to introduce at a later stage here or in another place an amendment to provide reasonable and sensible control in the future. Unless they do that, their words are empty phrases, pious hopes and expectations. I will not go further than that, but they should be as good as their word and ask for some mechanism to give them the control that they say they believe in.

Dr. Colin Phipps: I believe that I am about to break up the happy consensus referred to by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), because I am totally opposed to New Clause 2 for many of the reasons that he has given for his support of it.
First, the idea that the control is in some way coming either from this House or the European Parliament seems to me to be nonsense. The body that will be putting forward these salaries is the Council of Ministers. It will not be the European Parliament. I begin to believe that we here would be better off if we had a Council of Ministers deciding our salaries. When it is left to us to decide our salaries, far from going sky high they are appallingly low—so low that we look ludicrous in comparison with most of our European colleagues.
The reason for the new clause is emotive—"Look how much they are going to get in comparison with what we are already getting". It is our own fault that we are getting what we are getting. That is a fair point to make. The only thing that would persuade me to vote for the new clause would be if it proposed some control stemming from a body outside this House. Such a body might look at the problem sensibly and objectively and come up with sensible and objective salaries.
I fear that if the European Parliament were in the same position over its salaries as this House is over ours, it would do the same. It would always be frightened to put them up. It might start them at a reasonable level, but that would certainly be the level at which they would stay


historically. Far from being frightened, as the hon. Member for Faversham and my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) appear to be, that the Members of the European Parliament are somehow going to get on an enormous gravy train, putting up their salaries year by year by huge amounts, I expect the contrary to occur.
I would prefer to see a system devised by its Members for their own causes but tied, as we in this House are trying to tie it, to some exterior basis. When that basis rose, so would the salaries. I would have the decision made not by Members of the European Parliament, nor by the Commission, nor by the Council of Ministers. I would have it tied to some level. I am sure that within the European Civil Service there is an objective level which could be matched to the salaries of the European Parliament.
Expenses for Europe have not been put up. I have been a Member of the Assembly of the Council of Europe for two years, and in that period the level of expenses has remained static. They have not even changed as the exchange rates have changed. They are 280 French francs a day, expenses, and 70 French francs a day for incidental expenses, making a grand total of 350. I believe that total to be adequate for Strasbourg but inadequate for Paris. I have no doubt that such a situation will apply throughout Europe, and what will be a splendid expense account in one town will prove deplorably low in another. But that kind of thing can surely be managed by a body outside the European Parliament itself.
I come to the fundamental issue. It is one of control. My reason for opposing the new clause is precisely the same as the reason given by the hon. Member for Faversham for supporting it. I wish the European Parliament to have autonomy. I do not wish it to be tied to this body. I accept that those hon. Members who wish it to be tied to this body have wanted many other amendments beside this one. In practice, my view that the European Parliament should have some control over the Commission is no different in principle from the view of those who seek to have some form of control in this House over the Parliament. I fervently hope that the European

Parliament will not only be autonomous but will use that autonomy to establish its own power over the Commission. Therefore, I resist any measures that will give this House or another place measures of control over the European Parliament, and I resist New Clause 2 for that reason, reason.

Mr. John Page: I must apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for having attended the debate for only a short time. I speak now only because I intended to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), but he sat down before I had time to get it out.
I want to make a comment to which perhaps the two Front Benches may make a gliding reference if they feel like it. It is important that the British delegates, wherever they go, should not always be poor relations. It does not do the country any good if they are. Secondly, I do not know what salary figures are being suggested for a Member of the European Parliament, but his salary has to be enormously higher than that of a British Member of Parliament if he is to be able to keep up even the same standard of living as a Member of this House may be able to afford if he has a constituency in the country and tries to have his wife and family in London with him during working time.
If the European Parliament is to meet often in Brussels and Strasbourg, one imagines that the hon. Member who is married, and any Member who has children under school age, or even over school age, will need some pretty hefty allowances in order to enable him to survive in view of the accommodation costs in Brussels and Strasbourg.
Also, of course, it will be much more difficult for such a Member to be able to make the same sort of economies as we make here, bringing up the end of the loaf of bread and half the joint left over on Sunday to gnaw in our lonely accommodation on Monday evening. I think that one would look rather stupid carrying a carrier-bag of odds and ends in the aircraft on the Sunday night.
I also wonder whether any serious thought has been given to the fares of wives and families in joining the Members of the European Parliament. I am sure that it would not be the wish of the House


that Members of this House who are Members of the European Parliament should be led into any temptations of loneliness or celibacy—if that is the right word—during their evenings abroad. Surely, however much these chaps are going to be paid, they will not make a bomb out of it. Perhaps we can have some comments on this matter from our hon. and learned Friends on the Front Benches.

Mr. David Howell: Now that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) has, in his own terms, got it out, I will make a glancing reference to his comments, because they bring our debate down, or up, whichever way one likes to put it, to the precise problem which will confront the person who is elected and asked to go to the European Parliament, whether in Luxembourg or Strasbourg, return to his constituency, come to London, and the rest. It raises all sorts of problems and he has rightly said that these all generate certain costs.
7.30 p.m.
I fully recognise that there is public concern, and rightly so, about some of the figures which have been bandied about for the salaries of Members of the European Assembly. I welcome the opportunity that we have had today to debate this issue. The new clause links the whole fortunes of the Bill to a decision about salaries, and that is certainly one reason why I would not favour the new clause, and nor would some of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
There is another reason why we would not favour it, and it has been put by a number of right hon. and hon. Members. It is that this is surely a decision—as the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) rightly and clearly said—for the Council of Ministers. As I understand it—the Minister of State will be able to confirm this—that is also the view of the Government. It is a decision which should be taken under the auspices of the Council of Ministers. I will come in a moment to the way in which, as I understand it, that decision will be taken, but the ultimate decision must be for the Council of Ministers. This House can discuss it and debate it, and we may need to consider and hear from the Minister

about opportunities for debate, but our view clearly is that it is a decision for the Council of Ministers, and that is why I would not recommend support for the new clause.
A number of very important questions have been raised. I should like to underline some of them and perhaps add to others. The first question—it is one on which I am not altogether clear—relates to how the Council of Ministers addresses itself to this issue. Is there a proposal put forward to the Council of Ministers? If it from whom? Is it from the old Assembly, the one which exists now? If it were to be from the new Assembly, the implication of that would be that the whole election would have to be fought without this matter being cleared up, and that would be entirely wrong. I agree, therefore, with my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) that the sooner we clarify and decide the matter the better. From where does the proposal come for the Council of Ministers to decide—or does the Council just gather together and conceive and manufacture a proposal itself? That is the first question.
The next question is, what happens to that proposal in relation to this House? As hon. Members know very well, the proposals of the Commission, in going to the Council of Ministers, pass through the scrutiny procedure of this House, and in some cases are recommended for debate and criticism and are debated and criticised. Will the proposal concerning the salaries of Members of the European Assembly be subject to the Scrutiny Committee procedure? Our view would be that that is probably the right way for it to go. If there is a clear proposal coming forward, that is what would happen anyway, but if it is a unique form of proposal, a new procedure, with the Council of Ministers bringing forward its own idea or proposition, could we be assured that nevertheless it will come, through the scrutiny procedure, before this House? That is what we would favour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle) referred to taxation. I agree with those who say that this is a very important subject. We shall need to know from the Minister—and to know now, because it influences our views about the worth of the salary


after tax—how the taxation regime will be applied. The first and obvious question is whether national tax rates are to be applied. Will the British Members pay United Kingdom tax? If they do, how will they be affected by Schedule 7 to the Finance Act 1977, which governs work done abroad? Presumably, they will be abroad for more than 30 days, therefore presumably, although regarded as residing here, they will get a 25 per cent. reduction in tax on the whole of that part of their salary which arises abroad. We would need to know exactly how that is to work, and even more what is the Minister's view about the tax regime.
My own preference—and I think that of some of my hon. Friends—would be that national tax rates should apply, and that it would be wrong to go down the path that some hon. Members have suggested and to have either a Community tax rate or no tax rate applied. We think that that would be wrong and the national tax rates should apply, in which case the provisions of Schedule 7 to the Finance Act 1977 would also apply. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
As to the size of salary, it is difficult to take any precise figures. The range of salaries in the Parliaments of the Member States of the EEC is very wide indeed, as hon. Members on both sides have pointed out. My own preference would be for a common salary. In saying that, at the same time I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the view I have about national tax rates applying. There should be a common salary for common work done, and it should probably be in the middle of the lower end of the full range of existing salaries in Parliaments throughout the Community.

Mr. Roper: The hon. Gentleman has said that he favours a common salary. Will he also accept the same principle as applies to members of the Commission staff? In their case there is a weighting between different countries according to the cost of living in different countries. Will he agree that this should also apply to such a common salary?

Mr. Howell: I am not necessarily sure that I would accept that. I have emphasised that with the different national tax rates the take-home pay will vary

considerably. Certainly it will be lower in this country, as we have the highest rate of personal tax within the EEC.
It has been pointed out, quite rightly, that a good deal of the expense involved in this kind of job, in living and coping with family problems, will arise not in the United Kingdom but possibly in Strasbourg or Luxembourg or wherever the Parliament may be sitting. I would not rule out the hon. Gentleman's suggestion at this stage, but I am not sure that it is necessarily the right answer. I think that I would stick to the idea of a common salary. As I have said, if we go along that path and if we stick to the idea of national tax rates applying, this will produce a situation—it is not one that I particularly welcome—in which the net salary of the Member of the European Assembly sent from Britain will be rather lower than that of any Member from any other EEC country. That is obviously something that I should like to see changed, and my hon. Friends have made no secret about that. But the net effect at present of applying our very high personal tax rates would be to produce that result. Those are the views that we have on salaries and the questions on which we need answers.
I would agree with those who say that the system of allowances clearly needs tightening up, that the monitoring is not satisfactory, and that in any new arrangements which are agreed by the Council of Ministers, and which are discussed in this House—as I believe they must be—new proposals for allowances and for monitoring them ought to be included. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to reassure us on that.
Our basic feeling on this matter is that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, that the sooner we clear this up the better. We are serving nobody's interests by allowing very large figures to be knocked around, unrelated to the outgoings involved and often unrelated to any facts at all. I think that it is in the interests of the Government and of all those who want to see direct elections take place—and that includes the majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends—that we get this matter to a decision rather soon. We should like the Minister of State's assurance that he also sees the matter in that light.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): I believe that the House and, indeed, the country should be grateful to my hon. Friends for having put forward the new clause for our consideration, because the question of salaries and payments which United Kingdom representatives in the Assembly will receive is important. It is right that in the course of the passage of the Bill it should be considered and debated.
This House certainly has a very legitimate interest in the levels of salary and allowances that the United Kingdom representatives should receive. The question we have to consider is whether the House should seek to assume some specific statutory authority over them or whether the Community decision on salaries can be effectively controlled by the House in ways other than by making provision in our elections legislation. There is no argument between the Government and right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate about the need for control. The salary of Assembly representatives will be paid from Community funds. In our submission, it will therefore have to be determined at Community level. Discussions on this subject among the Governments of the Nine have already taken place under the aegis of the Council of Ministers. I confirm that it is the Council of Ministers acting unanimously which will have the final say on the level of salaries.
There has been some appropriate questioning about the authority for this view. The legal basis of the Council's authority with regard to salaries is, of course, Article 13 of the Act annexed to the decision of the Council of Ministers of 10th September 1976. This empowers the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the Assembly, and after consulting the Commission, to adopt measures to implement the Act. Salaries of representatives fall within this article.
I should like to assure hon. Members that it will be our objective—it very much is our objective that the old Assembly should put forward the proposal, because we believe that this needs to be made clear before the elections take place. In this context the point has also been raised about legislation on an increase in salaries.

Mr. Marten: Can we have an assurance that this matter will come to the Scrutiny Committee and be debated in this House before it is agreed by the Council of Ministers? This sort of thing does not come from the Assembly. It usually comes from the Commission.

Mr. Judd: I always admire the hon. Gentleman's eagerness. I hope to deal fully with that point during the course of my remarks.
If the level of salaries is fixed in the regulations, any increase in the level of salaries will require amendment to the regulations. Such amendments will also be subject to the scrutiny procedures of this House and arrangements can be made to debate such increases if the House wishes. The Scrutiny Committee certainly has a key role to play in this respect.
Therefore, the decision on the fixing of salaries—and this is clear—will ultimately be political. Whatever rumours or counter-statements have appeared in the Press, it will be for the Council to take this decision. In that body, we shall be able to withhold our consent to any proposals on salaries about which we are unhappy. We have made it clear that we shall not accept inflated figures.
Some of the Press speculation has mentioned figures which, frankly, if adopted, could only be regarded as grotesque. I believe that it was wholly proper for my right hon. Friend the Member for Black-burn (Mrs. Castle) to use the language which she used to draw attention to some of the problems that would result. If some of these grotesque proposals were adopted it would do incalculable damage to the credibility of representative democracy and positively provoke public cynicism about the body politic in general.

Mr. Budgen: Does not the Minister agree that if there is conflict between the Council of Ministers and the Assembly over matters other than the remuneration of the Assembly Members, in some sort of deal which occurs when the conflict has to be resolved there will be a tendancy for the Council to say "Let us settle this other issue in our favour and we shall give you the money to keep you quiet"?

Mr. Judd: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the conciliation procedures.


But one has to remember that the final decision is the decision of the Council of Ministers. Ministers can be held accountable to this House of Commons. In that sense, there is the power of the House of Commons to deal with that situation. I shall deal more fully with this point as we go forward.
I am glad that the House has put its views on record with regard to what would happen if salaries went berserk. Let me deal with some of the specific points that have been raised surrounding the detail of this issue.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Jay: Can my hon. Friend give a perfectly simple assurance that the Government will not accept any decision on this matter in the Council of Ministers without an adequate debate beforehand in this House?

Mr. Judd: If my right hon. Friend can contain himself, I am sure that I shall be able to satisfy him completely about that before I sit down.
First, there is the issue whether there have been any proposals from the Assembly as such which might be taken as verging towards the irresponsible with regard to salary levels. I should like to clear up this point. The position is that a working group of the European Assembly last year did some preliminary work on salary levels for directly elected Members. A German parliamentarian within that working group advocated that the salaries should be as high as those for the German Parliament. That would be about £25,000, including expenses, but most of it is salary.
However, no proposals have been submitted by the working group to the Assembly itself, nor have any proposals on salaries been communicated to the Council of Ministers. The President of the Assembly informed the Belgian President-in-Office at the Council of Ministers in July last year that although a working party had discussed the status of Members and exchanged ideas on salary proposals, the salaries of the Assembly had yet to be formulated. I understand that the position has not changed since then.
Points have also been rightly raised about taxation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) will agree that I shall have to draw some of

them to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I think I can answer some of the main thrusts of the hon. Gentleman's questioning.
Members of the European Assembly are at present subject to national taxation. To exempt them from national taxation and subject them to, for example, Community taxation would require amendments to the protocol on privileges and immunities, which does not at present give them any special tax status. Amendments to this protocol would require ratification by all member States. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are no proposals of which I know to change the position.
There is also the point about taxation on surpluses, as it were, paid in the way of allowances to Members of the European Assembly. I am assured that the Inland Revenue has never accepted that the allowances paid to Members of the Assembly should be tax free. They will be taxed on any excess of these allowances above accountable expenses.
In that context, I was also asked—I am glad that I was—about what could be done to improve the monitoring of this area of the Community's work. Several hon. Members have mentioned financial control and suggested that there are no adequate arrangements in the Community at present for ensuring that allowances and the like are not—to use a familiar phrase—fiddled. If that were so, it would indeed be disgraceful. But, in fact, the Community has always had its own independent audit system with the authority to deal with any abuses in the handling of Community money.
Only recently this Community audit function moved from the hands of an audit board and separate ECSC auditor to the newly constituted audit court. The British Government have always been to the fore in pressing for a strengthening of the system. It was largely at our initiative that the European Assembly decided to set up a sub-committee under the Budgets Committee to exercise a PAC-type function of financial control.
We were the first to ratify the 22nd July 1975 treaty which provided that a new and stronger European audit court be set up in place of the audit board. Last October the members of the audit court were appointed and it started work in


November. The 1975 treaty gives the court the power to examine the revenue and the expenditure of all the other institutions, including the Assembly, with a view to establishing whether all revenue has been received and all expenditure incurred in a lawful and regular manner and whether the financial management has been sound. I am sure the House will agree that this is a pretty strong and clear mandate. There is good cause to hope that it will be carried out—

Mr. Spearing: Hope?

Mr. Judd: —and that the work of the court will be an effective check on the sort of abuses about which hon. Members are concerned.

Mr. Spearing: Hope?

Mr. Judd: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that we shall do all that we can as a British Government to urge on the court.

Mr. Dykes: Will the Minister also comment on the fact that in order to achieve a more effective degree of control, one solution might be to provide expenses not by way of cash distributions but by way of facilities or vouchers—in other words, not the cash for an air fare but a voucher to provide the wherewithal for making the journey?

Mr. Judd: This is an interesting idea, and we shall look at it together with the other suggestions made in the debate.
Dealing with the issue of salary levels, any examination of current salary levels shows a wide variation across Europe in the salaries of national Parliaments, and it will not be easy to reach common agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) spelt out some of this.
Some representatives to the Assembly might like to have their salaries fixed at the highest rates enjoyed by, say, the parliamentarians of West Germany. Some hon. Members of this House might prefer that the scale was fixed at the lowest possible rate available, which is that enjoyed by Members of the Irish Parliament. There are other alternatives to simply fixing a flat rate. It might be possible to have a relatively low salary

coupled with allowances which took into account the time spent by the representative either in his country of origin or at his place of work at the European Assembly and of the cost of living in these various places, although it is clear from what has been said in the debate that if that kind of course were taken there would have to be very careful monitoring of the expense system. Another possibility is that a substantial salary might be fixed according to national circumstances and national parliamentary salaries, with a fixed system of expense allowances added to that.
These are matters which only the Council of Ministers may determine. However, I must underline our determination as a Government on no account to agree to a salary scale which would be inflationary by Westminster standards.
The new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), which was moved very effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), is designed to prevent direct elections taking place until this House has approved the salaries and expenses of Members of the European Assembly.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I thought that the hon. Gentleman just gave a clear description of the Government's likely attitude to the level of salaries, about which we are all concerned. He said that the Government would be against any level which might be inflationary by Westminster standards. Will he enlighten us about precisely what that means? How can the salaries of Euro-Members be inflationary, and does he mean inflationary by comparison with the salaries paid to Members of Parliament here?

Mr. Judd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for probing this matter. I think that what I said is clear. We are taking Westminster levels as a model, and we do not embrace any concept of salaries which are impossible or out of all relation to the kind of salaries which we believe to be reasonable in the Westminster setting. We are determined to stand firm on that.
However, it is not clear from the new clause whether those who support it are referring to United Kingdom representatives or to all Assembly Members. I


am sure that the House will recognise that the latter are beyond the scope of the competence of this Parliament. But even if those who support the clause wish only the former meaning, I put it to them that their provision would still be unnecessary.
This Parliament, through the accountability of Ministers, can exercise its control in the Council of Ministers, but ultimately it must be a political decision at Community level. I can give my right hon. and hon. Friends the assurance that the House will be able to debate the level of salaries before they are finally fixed by the Council. But this general point about the policy having to be arranged at Community level is why the Government feel unable to accept the clause.
The clause seeks to assume an authority which is neither present nor necessary. It is far better that we should seek a satisfactory agreement in the Council of Ministers to pay a reasonable rate for the job which representatives to the Assembly will he required to undertake.
Although the Government understand and sympathise with the principle and purpose of and the motivation behind the new clause, we feel unable to endorse it, and we must therefore ask the House to reject it.

Mrs. Castle: In saying, as my hon. Friend did just now, that the Government's guiding principle was that the salaries must be fixed at the Community level, was he saying that there was no power in the Council of Ministers to decide otherwise? In other words, is my hon. Friend pre-empting a decision on the matter which, according to the reply which he gave to my Question on 26th January is within the British Government's power to fight for in the Council of Ministers—that is, not a common salary but a national salary?

Mr. Judd: Based on Article 13 of the Treaty, any decision at the Council level has to be unanimous. That is quite clear. However, I want to confirm to the House what I have already underlined, which is that there will be a firm opportunity for debate here at Westminster before Ministers at Council level make any final decisions.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend said said that the Government's preference would be for the existing Assembly to make a proposal, referred to in Article 13. Can he tell us whether Her Majesty's Government have the approval of their colleagues on the Council? Have they any means of ensuring that such a stage would be reached before direct elections took place, and does he agree that, despite the unanimity rule in Article 13, the conciliation procedure set out there means that in effect there would be three parties to this—the national Parliaments, the Council of Ministers and the Assemby itself?

Mr. Judd: I know that my hon. Friend is a jealous guardian of the rights of this House, and I believe that he will find a place in history for his role in this respect. But I must make the point to him that, although the conciliation procedure is there, it is firmly and clearly established that the final decision is the Council's. The Council will make up its mind. On the wider aspect, I assure the House that we have done a great deal of work on this already and that we are determined to pursue with all the weapons at our disposal this principle of getting the matter cleared up properly before the elections take place.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 166.

Division No. 117]
AYES
[7.58 p.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hughes, Roberts (Aberdeen N)


Bell, Ronald
Dunlop, John
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Biffen, John
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lamond, James


Bradford, Rev Robert
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Leadbitter, Ted


Buchan, Norman
Farr, John
Lee, John


Budgen, Nick
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Litterick, Tom


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Flannery, Martin
McCusker, H.


Canavan, Dennis
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Madden, Max


Carson, John
Fraser, Rt Hon (Stafford &amp; St)
Marten, Neil


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Garrett, W. E (Wallsend)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Clemitson, Ivor
Gould, Bryan
Mendelson, John


Cowans, Harry
Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo Ian


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Molyneaux, James




Newens, Stanley
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Skinner, Dennis
Winterton, Nicholas


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Richardson, Miss Jo
Spriggs, Leslie



Roberts Gwilym (cannock)
Stoddart, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rodgers George (Chorley)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Mr. John Ellis and


Rooker, J. W.
Whitlock, William
Mr. Roger Moate


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Wigley, Dafydd





NOES


Alison, Michael
Grant, John (Islington C)
Parker, John


Anderson, Donald
Griffiths, Eldon
Pendry, Tom


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Atkinson, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Price, William (Rugby)


Atkinson, Norman
Hampson, Dr Keith
Prior, Rt Hon James


Bates, Alf
Hardy, Peter
Radice, Giles


Beith A. J.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rathbone, Tim


Berry, Hon Anthony
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hayhoe, Barney
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Henderson, Douglas
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hicks, Roberts
Roberts Wyn, (Conway)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hooson, Emlyn
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Howell, David (Guildford)
Roper, John


Bottomley, Peter
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Weight)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Howell Ralph, (North, Norfolk)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rowlands, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hunter, Adam
Royle, Sir Anthony


Brooke, Peter
Hurd, Douglas
Sandelson, Neville


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Janner, Greville
Sever, John


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
John, Brynmor
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Buchanan, Richard
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Snape, Peter


Carter, Ray
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Cartwright, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stallard, A. W.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Judd, Frank
Stanley, John


Clegg, Walter
Kaufman, Gerald
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Coleman, Donald
Knox, David
Stott, Roger


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lamborn, Harry
Stradling, Thomas, J.


Crawshaw, Richard
Lawrence, Ivan
Strang, Gavin


Cunningham, Dr. J. (Whiteh)
Le, Marchant, Spencer
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davidson, Arthur
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Davis Clinton, (Hackney C)
Luard, Evan
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McElhone, Frank
Thompson, George


Dormand, J. D.
Macfarlane, Neil
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Tinn, James


Dunn, James A.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Urwin, T. W.


Dunnett, Jack
Maclennan, Robert
Varley, Rt Hon, Eric G.


Dykes, Hugh
Marks, Kenneth
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


English, Michael
Mayhew, Patrick
Ward, Michael


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Watkins, David


Ennals, Harry (Stirling)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Watkinson, John


Faulds, Andrew
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Watt, Hamish


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Weatherill Bernard


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Whitehead, Phillip


Ford, Ben
Normanton, Tom
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Ogden, Eric
Wiggin, Jerry


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
O'Halloran, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Freud, Clement
Osborn, John



George, Bruce
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn, Dr Alan
Page, John (Harrow West)
Mr. Ted Graham and


Golding, John
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Joseph Harper


Goodhart, Philip
Palmer, Arthur

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Eight o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [26th January], to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eight o'clock.

Schedule 1

SIMPLE MAJORITY SYSTEM (FOR GREAT BRITAIN) WITH S.T.V. (FOR NORTHERN IRELAND)

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 6, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert—
'(6) No regulations shall be made under this paragraph unless a draft thereof has been


laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.—[Mr. John.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

8.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When I replied to the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill in November, I emphasised that it was for the House of Commons to reach a decision on the Bill presented by the Government to implement their commitment to direct elections. The House gave the Bill a Second Reading by a majority of 283 votes. Since then, the Bill has been in Committee of the whole House, the Committee has reported to the House, and now the House has a further opportunity to consider the matter.
It may be helpful if I summarise—and summarise only—the developments and highlight the changes in the Bill since it received its Second Reading in November.
First, with regard to the electoral system, hon. Members will notice that the Bill that has emerged from Committee is much slimmer than the one originally introduced. The Bill that received a Second Reading in November was 66 pages long. The Bill for which I seek a Third Reading today is only 12 pages long. This is due entirely to the choice made by the House on the electoral system to be used. The Bill, as originally constructed, contained two alternative electoral systems, of which only one is now needed. Therefore, the Bill is much shorter and simpler.
On 13th December, in a significant vote, the House rejected the Government's preferred regional list system. Subsequently, the House confirmed its preference for the traditional simple majority system.
In another vote on Clause 3, early this month—a vote of equal significance in my view—the House decided in favour of the STV system for elections in Northern Ireland. I believe that this was a sensible decision, taken in recognition of the special circumstances in Northern Ireland. I believe that such a system of

election for the European Assembly representatives in that part of the United Kingdom will prove to be right for Northern Ireland.
The House has therefore struck out all the clauses and schedules in the original Bill which dealt with the regional list system. We now have a Bill which provides an electoral system based on STV in Northern Ireland and a simple majority elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
In regard to the powers of the Assembly, the second change in the Bill since it received its Second Reading is the addition of an important new clause, Clause 6, concerning the approval of treaties increasing powers of the European Assembly. During the passage of the Bill this matter has provoked as much debate as any other issue. The question of the powers of the Assembly raises in many hon. Members' minds constitutional issues of fundamental importance and difficulty. Debates on this clause have ranged widely over many aspects of the relationship between the European Community and Westminster.
I hope that the House will recognise that the Government have gone a considerable way to meet the feelings that were expressed during Second Reading and subsequently.
I now wish to deal with the regulations, still on the theme of responding to the views and feelings expressed in the House.
Another significant change which the Government have made in response to representations is to provide for the affirmative resolution procedure in respect of regulations with the Secretary of State is empowered to make for the conduct of the elections. In the original Bill, for the simple majority system—I emphasise that—we provided the negative resolution procedure. Now Parliament will have the opportunity for a separate debate on the regulations.
I know that some hon. Members feel that this amendment does not go far enough. Some hon. Gentleman would prefer us not to make regulations but to put all or at least most of the electoral arrangements into substantive legislation. This view was expressed in the debates last week on the deposit, on the number of subscribers required for nomination, and on polling hours. But I think we


must asknowledge that the vast majority of the regulations to be made under this Bill will be straightforward and non-controversial. Far more important, they will be direct applications of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1949, which has 176 sections and nine schedules. Over 100 of those sections as well as provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1969 are directly relevant to the conduct of the European Assembly elections. In my view, it would have been wasteful, unnecessary, and even confusing to have put them all into the Bill as substantive clauses in their own right.

Mr. Powell: Will the Home Secretary say a few words about the corresponding regulations for the single transferable vote system in Northern Ireland? It is contemplated that those will be identical with the regulations made under the 1973 Act, or will they be varied and will there be an opportunity to debate those regulations, since this is a United Kingdom Act?

Mr. Rees: I cannot give a precise answer. I have not prepared myself to answer on that matter, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the opportunity to debate those regulations will be given. If there are any important differences, I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to pick them up in the course of the evening.
I point out that even under the affirmative resolution procedure the House will not have an opportunity to amend the regulations; it must simply accept them or reject them. I have always made it clear that we would consult political parties and others concerned before the regulations were laid.
In Committee last week my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that we were prepared to go even further to ensure that our proposals for regulations were fully known and understood before they were formally laid before the House. He undertook to consider the possible issue of a White Paper on the lines of that published with draft regulations for the EEC referendum. I confirm that statement made by my hon. Friend. It may be that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and others

from Northern Ireland have experience of Northern Ireland legislation that differs from this system. If there are any views on this matter, we would be pleased to receive them before we publish the White Paper because it is important to have agreement on these matters.
I wish now to deal with the Boundary Commission procedures. The operation of the guillotine has meant inevitably that certain matters have not been discussed. However, I should like to say a few words about an aspect of special importance. I refer to the procedure in Schedule 2 for the Boundary Commissions to draw up single Member constituencies for elections in Great Britain.
The procedures now embodied in the Bill were described as option B in the White Paper on direct elections. They are based on our existing procedure for determining parliamentary constituencies, but provide for only one round of representations to the Boundary Commission after the publication of their initial proposals and for no local inquiries.
Given that the Commissions will be working on the basis of the existing parliamentary constituencies and constructing the new Assembly constituencies from clusters of these constituencies, the Government do not think that it is necessary to adopt the full-scale procedure.
Equally, we think it would be wrong to go to the other extreme and for the House itself to fix the constituencies by means of a schedule to the Bill, as was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) or by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). The formation of such constituencies is no mere academic exercise on which we should all be able to agree without difficulty or amendment; it involves delicate judgments, which could have a great effect on the results of the elections. It is right in principle, in my view, that there should be an independent arbitration and non-party recommendation on these constituencies.

Mr. Thorpe: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that option B will be adopted, and does he recall his eloquent remarks about the way in which the dividing line is to be set in Leeds, and whether it should be east-west or north-different results? Since there is to be no south, so that one may have four totally


local inquiry, are all representations to be made in writing, or orally?

Mr. Rees: I have put my mind to this matter, but I have not spoken to the Boundary Commission. I thought it better to wait until we got to this situation. I think that it will be done by way of written representations. But the right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that in working on existing constituencies the result will depend upon where a start is made. I have no doubt that many people have some good ideas as to where to start, but in this instance it will be left with the Boundary Commission. However, if there is an aspect that troubles the right hon. Gentleman, I shall be willing to examine it.

Mr. Thorpe: This is an important point. If there are to be merely written representations, and nothing more, it appears that the citizen will be deprived, as will the political parties, of making the representations which otherwise they might do. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that often when people make representations the Commissioners may wish to cross-examine and question them further? That is a fundamental right, which we should not lightly dispose of.

Mr. Rees: That is the whole point about options A, B and C which I shall be coming to in a moment. It would be most desirable to have the full panoply that we have in a parliamentary redistribution, but the point is that parliamentary redistributions, like the one that is just getting under way for the North-East Coast and will be published I imagine, in 1981–83, are made of new bricks, in this case local government reform. In the Bill we are talking about the existing 635 parliamentary constituencies.
The right hon. Gentleman urges that oral representations should be allowed, but they are not provided for in option B, and if there is any question of some people being allowed to have a word with the Boundary Commission, we shall have to have a system that gives everyone that right. As things stand, written representations will be taken, but I shall have a word with the Commission and we shall have time to look at this matter again to see whether another gloss can be put on it.

Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when the Commission has made its recommendations an order will be laid before the House?

Mr. Rees: Yes, orders will come to this House, as in the normal fashion.

Mr. Marten: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his replies? It is astonishing that we cannot have the sort of inquiry suggested by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). The Home Secretary probably does not read the Conservative Monthly News, which is an excellent publication in many ways, but the Leader of the Opposition is on record there as saying that there is no cutting of corners in the inquiries of the Boundary Commission on direct elections.

Mr. Rees: The right hon. Lady is as mistaken on that as on many other matters. I have no idea where she got that from.

Mr. Roper: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if option B is followed it will be possible for the Commission to complete its work within four months of Royal Assent being given to the Bill?

Mr. Rees: Timing is important. I have just checked this matter and I can tell the House that if there were inquiries, they would add three or four months to the time taken under the option B that we have been talking about all along.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I am sorry that I was not here when my right hon. Friend opened the debate. Has he allowed for the fact that in another place the Bill may receive the same severe hammering that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill received? Is he saying that the Boundary Commission will start its work before the House of Lords has pronounced on the Bill? May there not be the 12-month delay that we had with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill before we get a chance to finalise this Bill?

Mr. Rees: We shall be waiting for another place to decide. I am sure they will give the Bill the objective thought that they gave the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Bill a few months ago.

Mr. Budgen: I hope they do.

Mr. Ron Thomas: My right hon. Friend was suggesting that it was a simple question of where the Commission started from, but surely it is much more involved than that. Having started, the Commissioners will have to make a decision whether to go north, south, east or west to bring the constituencies together. I think this will create all sorts of problems. We should have a much more adequate form of representation than is provided for in the Bill—a form which, in any case, we have not had time to debate.

Mr. Rees: The whole aspect of the timing of this matter and the method of election arose when the regional list system was put forward, so whatever else we have not discussed, we have discussed the timing.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Rees: I shall give way again for the purposes of elucidation, but I hope that no one will complain that I have taken a lot of time.

Mr. Marten: We have plenty of time.

Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if another place does not give the Bill the most thorough and fierce scrutiny it will be playing into the hands of the opponents of another place, who see it as a tool of the Tory Party, and that it will be sticking a nail in its own coffin?

Mr. Rees: I must admit that whatever another places does, I regard it as the tool of the Tory Party.

Mr. Stoddart: This is an important point. My right hon. Friend told us that having full inquiries would add about three or, at the most, four months to the time that it will take for the constituencies to come before this House. Bearing in mind that there is a lot of opposition to the Bill and many fears about it, that there will be no direct elections in 1978, and that they are unlikely to take place until May or June 1979, would it not be better, from his point of view and from the point of view of the Government and the country, to take that extra time in order to ensure that everyone is satisfied that the job has been done properly?

Mr. Rees: That is a fair point, to which I have been putting my mind in

the last week or two—despite the fact that we are talking about option B. I shall return to it in a moment.
I shall be interested to hear what is said by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am sure that my hon. Friends are putting forward their suggestions with the best motives of making sure that the Bill is on the statute book in good time and I am considering them in that spirit.

Mr. Gould: My right hon. Friend has been most generous in allowing interventions. As other hon. Members have said, this is an important point.
Given that there is now no date for the direct elections, and in the light of what he has said about timing, can my right hon. Friend give any indication of the sort of timetable to which the Government are operating?

Mr. Rees: I shall deal with that in a moment.
As to other electoral matters, the general principle that we have followed is that the procedures for European Assembly elections should be based, as far as possible, on the existing Westminster procedures. This was the basis of the view taken in Committee by the Minister of State when he resisted the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) that the franchise should be extended to include citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies living elsewhere in Europe.
The Government believe that this issue and several of the other changes that Opposition Members would have been prepared to make to the Bill should not be effected before they have been thoroughly examined by a Speaker's Conference on electoral law. This is not solely because of the practical problems inherent in such a scheme, but because we do not accept that an extension of the franchise for direct elections can be seen in isolation from the franchise for parliamentary and local government elections.
Some hon. Members are inclined to be dismissive about the Speaker's Conference. They see it merely as an excuse for delay. Let me assure them that it is not, either on the question of extending the franchise for the first direct elections or on other issues. Since the early part of this century I believe that the Speaker's


Conference has been a valuable instrument for obtaining all-party agreement on changes in our electoral laws and practices. In view of the events of the past few weeks I do not argue for consensus in all areas of policy, but on electoral matters I feel that some powerful argument needs to be advanced before we depart from the precedent of the Speaker's Conference. I accept that we did make a departure with the regional list system.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find, in looking back on previous Speaker's Conferences, that the only successful ones were those that went into conference with a fairly clear direction from the Government on where the Government wanted to come out. Will he indicate where the Government would like to come out of this one?

Mr. Rees: No, I do not agree with that. There is still a great deal of discussion between the representatives of the major party organisations. It may be that the hon. Gentleman will give chapter and verse, but I take the view that the Speaker's Conference is a party occasion when all sides come up with ideas on how to proceed.

Mr. Douglas Hurd: The Home Secretary referred to the amendment that I moved last week that sought to extend the franchise. He explained again that he thought that the issue must go to a Speaker's Conference. However, I must pursue the point that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). If the issue does go to a Speaker's Conference, are the Government, in principle, in sympathy with such an extension? The right hon. Gentleman must know what considerable disappointment was created by the Government's decision last week.

Mr. Rees: I am ready to discuss this matter. One problem that arises in this instance is the different nature of representation over the years based on area registration rather than citizenship as in some other parts of the word. If the new Assembly were to be based upon that concept, it would be a different sort of Assembly. Representation in this country has been based on area registration and not on the basis of a person belonging to a country although he has

been away from it for a year or two. Unless an individual is on the register for the area, I believe that inclusion would affect the nature of the representation of the Members of Parliament concerned.

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Rees: I would willingly discuss this issue, but in fact it has not really arisen on this occasion. However, it illustrates the point that there are many ideas and recommendations that may be put before a Speaker's Conference. It will be an interesting matter to discuss as time goes on. As the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) represents a constituency that I failed to represent, I shall allow him to intervene.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way as he has done so on many occasions. Does he agree that it would be wrong for him to give the impression to the House that the proposal to give the vote to those overseas in the Community countries was as sweeping as the change to which he has referred? Surely it was a more limited change, in view of the facilities that are already made available, for example, for the Rhine Army.

Mr. Rees: That is opening up a wider discussion. I accept that there is a variety of views. However, we are on Third Reading and a decision has been taken.
I shall deal with timing, and I take the argument that has been advanced by a number of my hon. Friends about the difference between B and A. The difference in timing is that between 18 weeks and 30 weeks—namely, 12 weeks.
How do we view the progress of the Bill and the timing of the first elections? It became clear in December, once the House had rejected the regional list system, that we would not be able to reach the original Community target date of May-June 1978 for the first elections. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs explained our position to the meeting of the Council of Ministers in January. There will now be further discussions within the Council of Ministers, and I presume that it will agree on a new target date. That is a matter for discussion and agreement between the Ministers.
As for the Bill, it is important to ensure that it reaches the statute book in


good time, so that we can be prepared to hold elections on the new date that is agreed with our Community partners.
As I have said, the difference in timing is a matter of going from 18 weeks to 30 weeks. I concede that the other method would allow the community to make recommendations. On behalf of the Government, I do not want to be in the position—it may be that others have a different view—of proposing a new time scale only to be unable to get the legislation in time. It is really a matter of how long it will take in the House and in another place. My right hon. Friend believes that thorough discussion will take place in the other House, and it might last for about a year—or it might shuttlecock back and forth on the basis of hybridity. We do not know.
We have to be sure on this matter of timing, and, frankly, that is why I felt that it should be left on the basis of 18 weeks.

Mr. Rooker: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that these elections will not take place at a time inconvenient for the British electoral calendar year, that is, November, December, January and February, when the new register is being put together?
I do not know what the set-up is in the rest of the Community. The EEC countries may have different arrangements for the publication of registers. I should not want the date to be set in such a way that, if the elections were to come later this year or early next year, it would be extremely inconvenient to us though convenient for the rest of our partners. Will my right hon. Friend give that assurance?

Mr. Rees: I assure my hon. Friend that our representative in Europe will take that into account. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gives thought from time to time to the question of election dates, and I shall bring the matter to his notice, with the suggestion that he might take it into account after reading this evening's debate.

Mr. Thorpe: Could the Home Secretary help us further? There is a genuine difficulty here. He says that we must get the legislation. With that I agree, but a question remains. I feel that we are leaving matters rather vague if the Home

Secretary says that we may be given option A or option B.
I invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Schedule 2, paragraph 5, which says that the Boundary Commission shall publish a notice bringing its proposals to the attention of the electorate. I turn then to sub-paragraph (2), which provides that
the Commission shall take into consideration any representations duly made".
Then, in paragraph 6, there is provision for inquiries to be held.
Thus, there is provision which would enable option B to be carried out. My question is this, who takes the decision on whether it is option A or option B? Is it the House of Commons or is it the Home Secretary, on his ipse dixit? We must have matters clearer than they are. We cannot leave them hanging in the air as either option A or option B. Personally, I should like option A.

Mr. Rees: The decision of the House is that it is option B. I beg to differ with the right hon. Gentleman. We shall come back to this. I have powers in the matter. I take them firmly into account in the way that right hon. and hon. Members suggest, but it is option B that has been implicit in what we have said from the beginning.

Mr. Thorpe: What about the schedule?

Mr. Rees: We shall have a look at the schedule to see whether it is deficient, but I do not think that it is. We are taking option B.
The Bill enables us to meet our international obligations over elections to the European Assembly without—

Mr. Spearing: I perceive that my right hon. Friend is coming to the end of what has been a most interesting speech. I wish him to clear up one matter. We have the Bill, we have the election and we have the regulations as he put them in his speech. If there should be election petitions, would the provisions of the Parliamentary Electors Registration Act 1868 or its successor apply? In other words, do the courts in this country have to deal with any matter of dispute—will he look at that, if he does not want to do it in the Lords—or will it be a matter for the courts of the Community to decide?

Mr. Rees: No, it is a matter never very far from my mind, and the answer is firmly "Yes". There are only two of us in the world who keep a copy of this Act by our bedside. My hon. Friend and I are those two.
I was just saying that the Bill enables us to meet our international obligations without calling into question unnecessarily the framework of elections to Westminster. The Government have taken very much in mind what the House has said in recent months, and I trust that the Bill will be given a Third Reading.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. David Howell: Although the Home Secretary seemed a little hazy about the content of the Bill towards the end of his intervention, it is true that the principles behind it have been discussed over a long period. Therefore, I think it right to confine myself to three observations on the Bill that we have before us.
The Home Secretary drew attention to the fact that this is a much thinner Bill than when we started. We believe that it is a much better Bill. Indeed, when I look at this slim volume compared with the much fatter document with which we started, I cannot help thinking how pleasant it would be to do the same to many other Bills that come before the House. We think that there has been great improvement.
The affirmative resolution procedure, which we voted into the Bill on Report, is an advantage. The procedure, together with the White Paper that the Home Secretary confirmed will be forthcoming, will give the House additional important opportunities for discussion. Those changes are welcome. They represent advances on the original arrangements.
I am sure that the House, in Committee, was right to throw out the regional list idea. I am sure that the Select Committee was right from the start in its assessment that we should stick to the first-past-the-post system. Heaven knows, the Opposition understand the needs of the Government in relation to the Lib-Lab pact. The Government have had to do some very silly things from time to time to keep the pact alive, but the regional list system was going too far. The Government were asking the Liberal Party, which believes in propor-

tional representation, and the whole House to accept a revolutionary and muddled system which clearly had not been thought out.
The Home Secretary referred to a Speaker's Conference and the need to refer changes in the method of franchise to such a conference. I should have thought that was an example par excellence of the danger of trying to ram through major and complicated changes in the method of franchise as part of another Bill. We think that the Select Committee was right in the first place, that the House, in Committee, was right to throw out the regional list system, and that the Bill is all the better for it.
There is no question in my mind that the system of election has been the cause of delay. I do not accept that the rejection of proportional representation delayed the Bill. The Home Secretary knows that, unless it had been possible to get the Bill to Royal Assent by last Christmas, there would have been no question of reaching the May-June target this year. The right hon. Gentleman knows that and we know that. Therefore, we ask him not to keep on with the proposition—it may be good politics for a time, but it does not make sense—that the delay over the system of election and the rejection of the regional list monstrosity led to the postponement of the election date until next year. The delay was caused by problems not of the electoral system but of the Government. Everyone knows that. Therefore, I see no point in trying to disguise that fact. As I said, if we were to achieve the 1978 deadline, we should have required Royal Assent by Christmas. There was never any hope of that in the light of the disputes going on within the Government before the Bill was introduced.

Mr. Roper: Will the hon. Gentleman substantiate his argument that it would have been necessary, if we had the regional list system, to have Royal Assent by Christmas? His hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) had a pretty horrendous timetable when we discussed this matter before, but this is an extraordinary idea. Why would we have needed Royal Assent by Christmas?

Mr. Howell: To make the preparations and to meet the target date. That is my view. Certainly a substantial part of the


delay arose from the failure to introduce the Bill in time. I am sure that everyone recognises that fact.

Mr. Fernyhough: I know that the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends have been hasty about this matter. I wonder whether he has been following the news in the last 48 hours about the row between Brussels and Paris regarding the place at which the new Assembly is to function. Both Belgium and France are saying that if the Parliament is not to be located in their respective countries, they will not take part in direct elections. Therefore, what is all the hurry about if France, Belgium and Luxembourg are making it clear that they will not participate in direct elections unless the Assembly is in their respective countries?

Mr. Howell: This is a dispute which no doubt will be worked out, but at the moment there is not very much hurry, with the time and date now put forward to 1979. We do not know yet, and it has not been discussed, what month of 1979 will be chosen for the election, but the pressure is off. That is why we support strongly the case for allowing the Boundary Commission to follow procedures of the kind set out in option B.
As I understand it—here the Home Secretary was very obscure—that is what we have agreed to in Schedule 2 of the Bill. I do not see why the Home Secretary had any doubts on this matter. To me it seems clear.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I must make it clear that the Bill carries out option B. The right hon. Gentleman was referring to inquiries. They were about reviews at a later stage. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it could easily have been raised in other parts of the Bill. As drawn up, the schedule carries out option B. There is no dubiety about that. However, we can clear it up at a later stage.

Mr. Howell: If there is no dubiety, it should not need clearing up at a later stage. May I attempt to clear the matter up with the Home Secretary?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: There is no dubiety on my part. It is Schedule 2(4)(1)(a). That is the sub-paragraph that makes clear that it is option B. There is no

dubiety on my part or on the part of my advisers, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is wrong, no doubt he will point it out.

Mr. Howell: I am glad of that confirmation. Will the Home Secretary further confirm that, as it stands, therefore, in the schedule it rules out the kind of oral representations that the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) was making and confines the Boundary Commission to one month's written representation?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Yes.

Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Member said that I was asking for option A. Will he also make it clear that Lord Thorneycroft, on behalf of the Conservative Party, in his submission of evidence to the Select Committee, made precisely that same point?

Mr. Howell: We have made that point before. That was in the days when we believed, as it turned out wrongly, that the Government would introduce the Bill and allow those proceedings to go through. Even with the delayed date next year, it seems to us that option B is the right one on which to proceed.
Thirdly, I would restate—this is an appropriate moment to do so at the Third Reading—the overall position of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Bill and on direct elections. We favour the Bill, particularly in the form to which it is now reduced, and we favour direct elections. I fully concede that there are those in our party, and there are those, of whom we have heard much, in the Labour Party, who are against the Bill, against direct elections and against our membership of the EEC. I think that it is agreed on both sides of the House that of those in the Conservative Party who are against the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) takes the prize as the most dedicated, passionate and persistent. I salute those qualities. He believes, as he says, and as he writes from time to time, in "standing up for Britain". That is the phrase that he uses. So do I.
One can fairly say that devotion to one's own land is one of the finest and most natural sentiments that exist. The difference between us is simply that I


say, as do many of my right hon. Friends, that we do best by that ideal by participating in the EEC and in the European Assembly through direct elections.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury says that the sovereign Parliament must be distinguished by three unfettered powers. He sets down those powers very clearly in a pamphlet that he has been kind enough to give me, thus saving me the task of paying 10p for it. Those three powers are to make laws, to impose taxes and to negotiate treaties. I say that in at least two of those areas we already carry heavy fetters, imposed long before we joined the EEC, by the growth of bureaucratic power and by international economic pressures. We say that we shall withstand and influence the latter, and probably the former, far better from within the EEC and far better as a result of active membership of a directly-elected Assembly. That is our difference of view and it is a fundamental one. I make no bones about it.

Mr. Budgen: I know that my hon. Friend has a deep-seated hatred of the bureaucrats and particularly of the bureaucratic process. I wonder whether he would like to comment upon the report of a speech by Mr. Roy Jenkins which is contained in The Times of 15th February in which he says that in direct elections to the European Assembly the Commission will do all that it can to ensure that the election is fought on the major issues. What right has any bureaucracy to interfere in our elections like that? How does he square that with his views?

Mr. Howell: Mr. Roy Jenkins is entitled to his own view on the elections. I am not sure that I necessarily agree with his analysis of what the elections will be about. We all have our own views and we have aired them in this debate. The national political parties will be involved and I am sure that major issues of principle between the parties will be vigorously debated in the elections, whatever anyone else may say.
We need not be defeatist about our role in the European Assembly. We are not an untried and unskilled people when it comes to democratic politics and we ought to be perfectly able to make the best of our opportunities. I welcome the amended Bill and believe, with my right

hon. and hon. Friends, that it should be read the Third time.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Spearing: I take up immediately the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) about his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). I believe that the personal history of the hon. Member for Banbury bears out that, although he will certainly, correctly, stand up for Britain, he also believes in international co-operation. The motivating force of many of us on the Labour Benches throughout this debate has not only been our belief in the proper sovereignty of this House to tax, to legislate and to make treaties, but also our belief that the best way to bring about international co-operation is through the retention of that fundamental independence, going ahead in associations of various sorts so that human beings on a worldwide scale can reach lasting and proper international co-operative agreement.
We do not think that the EEC fits into the category I have described. It is supranational. The aims of the Commission, which have been quoted by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), show that the beliefs of many in the EEC go far beyond the idea of an association of free and democratic States. The EEC wishes to create a super-State and to derive its powers from the powers of this House, which are our historic trust. That is why in this historic debate—and I fear that it will be historic—we are opposing the Bill once again.
The Conservative Party and its spokesmen have put the case clearly before us tonight. The Conservative Party has reneged on its historic belief in those things which we have enunciated just as it has done on many other issues. Just as the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)—and we are glad to see him here tonight—is beginning to realise that things are not what he once thought, I very much fear hat that will be the case with the Conservative Front Bench in years to come. If I am wrong I shall be pleased.
It may be that the same will be true of the Government Front Bench. The Third Reading of this Bill is the result of
the best endeavours of the Government".


They gave that pledge in the Council of Ministers, with no backing from the electorate, and with no backing from the party. Indeed, if this measure is carried tonight, it will have been put through without even the support of a majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party, let alone its own conference and the NEC. I am not denying the right of Governments on occasions, if they believe it right and there are reasons for doing so, to differ from their party, but when they do they should give good reasons for their action.
In introducing a timetable motion on the Bill the Government could not even give reasons for that action. It shows that they, too, were under pressure. It may be that the pressures of membership of this organisation have pressed the Government not only to take these extraordinary steps in respect of the Bill but to make extraordinary and novel uses of the guillotine itself. Those are on the record for all who want to see them.
I believe that in future the central issue will be Clause 6—at least the debates have centred on it—because it was on 2nd February that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs moved New Clause 8, as it was, in Committee of the whole House. He thought that that would satisfy and meet some of the main objections of those of us on this side of the House.
Throughout the debates on the Bill the Prime Minister and the Government have claimed that there is nothing in the Bill—indeed, they claim that this applies also to the EEC—of a federal nature. The Prime Minister writes to the party and says that he wishes to defend the rights of national Governments and Parliaments to pursue their own policies, and he claims that the measure that we are about to dispose of tonight is not federal because the powers of the Assembly to which these persons are to be elected are the powers that they possess now. He says that they are not federal.
The debates in Committee showed that some of us wished to demonstrate that the European Assembly already has federal powers, without direct elections. Indeed, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office agreed that even on the

matter of salaries the Assembly will have more say than will the House because the proposal comes from the Assembly in the first instance. There might be conciliation. My hon. Friend agreed that that would be so, and there is one Minister in that conciliation process who will be acting on the advice of the House. Thus, even as set up, there are federal influences. We know about the budget. We discussed those influences in Committee, and I shall not go into them now.
The crux of the matter arose when the Foreign Secretary introduced what is now Clause 6. He said that it was an earnest of the Government's intention. It is entitled:
Parliamentary approval of treaties increasing Assembly's powers".
On 2nd February there was a four-hour debate under the guillotine on that clause. But for the guillotine we should have gone on to discuss the matter again because the Opposition had put down Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, which were selected.
It was the Opposition who raised the issue of the effects of Article 235 of the Treaty of Rome, which gives the Community its powers. It says that if the
Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the Assembly, take the appropriate measures".
That article is a Charlemagne clause if ever there were one. We have our Henry VIII clause, and the one to which I have just referred is a Charlemagne clause in the Treaty of Rome.
Because of the operation of the guillotine on 2nd February, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office was not able to reply to the legal points raised at that time. He is always extremely courteous, and he had the courtesy to include in Hansard the answers that he sent me and the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) in an attempt to reply to the points that had been made during that debate. He said that of course Article 235 could not be used formally to increase the powers of the Assembly, but he added:
Extension of Community competence into new fields is of course a different question, and that can indeed, provided it is within the objectives of the Treaty of Rome, be done, and has been done, in the case of the Regional Development Fund under Article 235."—[Official Report, 14th February 1977; Vol. 944, c. 117.]


My hon. Friend also said that as this was entirely an optional matter, agreed under the unanimity rule of the Council, the powers of the Assembly over the budget, over this non-obligatory expenditure, were complete.
Therefore, in respect of the new Clause 6 and Article 235, even the Government on their own account have said that there may be an expansion if not in powers in the narrow constitutional sense certainly in competence. I claim that the everyday meaning of "powers" includes the ability to increase competence where the Assembly is the final authority, because it controls the money. It controls it completely, because it is not obligatory expenditure. Control of money is the absolute basis of the levers of power in this respect.

Mr. Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman concede the obvious point that there is all the difference in the world between that and the reality that unless there were fundamental treaty changes, which are not envisaged, the Assembly could not autonomously create new powers of its own or extend its powers? All powers in the Assembly flow from concessions made exclusively by the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Spearing: I am coming to that point. I said that such an increase in the ambit of competence must be made with the unanimous consent of the Council. My hon. Friend added in his letter that the House would be able to control the Minister at the Council and so veto an extension of competence, because the Council must be unanimous. That sounds good. My hon. Friend said that it was for the assiduity of Members of Parliament to see that competence was not extended if they did not want that to happen.
But my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have forgotten the major point that if a regulation is promoted by the Commission or the Council and is brought to the House through the Scrutiny Committee, the House is in only an advisory position in regard to the Minister. There is no constitutional tie. The Minister may stand in peril of being thrown out or whatever, but there is no constitutional tie between the House and his behaviour in the Council.
Let us suppose that at the same time there was a great row over green pounds, fisheries or oil. In the light of that, the House might well not wish to put a complete block on what the Minister could do. Therefore, there is a big lacuna even in the Government's new clause, Clause 6.
However, that was not the main argument that we were advancing in Committee. We were saying that while this was a nice, new shiny front door with some good knobs on it, though we now see that it contains a broken pane of glass, the Minister and the Government have not simply left the back stable door open; they have left that doorway without a door.
I come now to what may happen if Members are elected to the European Parliament. It is said that we shall have the tug-of-war triangle of the Council, Commission and directly elected Assembly. People have said that we must watch the Assembly, that it will take powers from this House. I agree that it may well do so. Some of my hon. Friends who have been in the Assembly—though not many have been present tonight, which is an interesting comment on the Bill—

Mr. Roper: The Assembly is sitting at this time. This is the problem of the dual mandate.

Mr. Spearing: Yes, but it is sitting in an advisory capacity and we are here in a legislative capacity. The hon. Members concerned, wherever they are—they may be sitting in the Assembly at this minute, but I am doubtful about that—were elected in the first instance to Legislate in this place. If they cannot be here when we are dealing with this Bill, I leave it to the House to draw its own conclusions.
The point I wish to make is about the likely role that the Assembly will play. Some of our hon. Friends have said "Do not bother. It is a sleepy old sheepdog. It will not stir itself a great deal. It could perhaps bark and bite a bit, but at the moment it is quiescent and even when directly elected is likely to remain so." That is a minimal situation. Supposing that it remains so and after the direct elections the Assembly carries or, in the way described; then it will simply be


rubber-stamping the proposals of the Commission.
We all know that the Commission is the engine room of the Community. It has strong views about the way and the direction in which the Community shall move, as instanced by the quotation made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Therefore, it is not just a question of the Assembly springing to life but of the relationship of the Assembly with the Commission.
Commissioner Jenkins, speaking in the Assembly on 13th December, said:
May I say that one objective we have in mind is to be able to put forward proposals which will command the support of Parliament without amendment being necessary.
The theory is that if a future Commission fulfils that objective, the views of the Assembly will constrict and confine any proposal that the Commission may want to put forward. But I have a suspicion that the reverse is more likely to happen in practice.
The Commission is a powerful body and has a powerful bureaucracy. It as a considerable information service, and methods of persuasion and ideas which go around. Therefore, it is more likely that the Assembly will, by various methods, be persuaded that the Commission's proposals are the right ones. It is much more likely that it will go on rubber-stamping, will amplify, and, in the words of Mr. Tindemans, give democratic legitimacy to the proposals of the Commission.
Thus, the danger is that the Assembly will not do as much as, and may do less than, it does at the moment. Even if the Assembly is active, it may be active in the pursuit of the Commission's goals. It may, of course, go in pursuit of its own. But whatever happens the pressure on the Council of Ministers which, at the moment, effectively comes from the Commission, the Assembly and ourselves, will be greater from the combination of the Commission and the Assembly, and therefore we shall be losing that effective power anyway.
It seems, therefore, that whatever we do comes down to the fact, whether the Assembly is a sheepdog or active, that there will be a loss of influence and power in this House which we would otherwise

retain for ourselves. We can see the problem now of Community politics in relation to our own domestic scene. Our Prime Minister, like any Prime Minister, has to deal with the dilemma of elections. He will have to consider and calculate the possibility of an Assembly election, possibly a mid-term election, and that situation will have an effect upon this House and the electorate.
As I said at the beginning, many of us who are opposed to the Bill are not opposed to it because we do not believe in international co-operation we do. The EEC is not international, it is supranational, and that means the erosion not only of the powers of this House but of the powers of the people who sent us here. It is a handing over of the historic rights and privileges of this House, which belong not to us but to the British people.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Rathbone: I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will forgive me if I do not follow the same thought train that he was evolving in his speech. Right at the start I should like to stand shoulder to shoulder with my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who, in describing most eloquently, earlier in the debate, what he felt about the way in which this country can be best positioned vis-à-vis the rest of the world, suggested that it was through our membership of the European Community.
I have to express some doubt whether the Home Secretary feels quite as strongly in that respect, because he said in his speech that he had been thinking for only the last two or three weeks about some of the questions concerning the operation of the elections to the European Assembly, whereas I would expect him to have been thinking about them over for the last two or three years. It seems somewhat peculiar that he was sharing with the House an uncertainty about the method of operation of the Boundary Commission. Having said that, he seemed to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford in his assessment of the wisdom of the House in chosing the methods of election which the House has chosen, even though this was somewhat contrary to the advice of his own Government.
I do not share the Government's position on this question, because I believe that we have not thereby got the best form of election for the European Assembly. One of the reasons that we have not got the best form of election is that, of course, we did not even have time to debate all the leading alternatives to that form of election.
It would be perfectly reasonable to claim that the debate, both before and during the Committee stage, was to a large extent falsely based, and that this has led to a less than satisfactory Bill for our consideration now. I remind the House that the Bill was falsely based because it was taken under the duress of a timetable motion, which has meant that amendments and clauses have been debated too superficially and that too many of both have not been debated at all.
Will the Home Secretary inform the House whether he can give a report such as was promised by the Minister of State, Home Office, in the other place on 9th February, when, in a Written Answer to Lord O'Hagan, he said that information on what had been debated and what had not been debated would be provided? It would be interesting for this House to know precisely what that score card may be here this evening.
I believe that this House succumbs at its own peril to such judo tactics by the Government on any piece of legislation. It does itself no good as the Government are yet again allowed to steamroller legislative plans through the House rather than carry them through by political argument and persuasion. Nowhere is such argument and persuasion more important than in a constitutional Bill such as this.

Mr. John Lee: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying at the moment. Will he use his influence among the peers to ensure that the Bill is sufficiently amended in the other place to be sent back here for a proper discussion of the matters which, for the reasons that he has quite rightly indicated, have not been discussed in this House?

Mr. Rathbone: Far be it for me, as a relatively new boy to this House, to admit to any influence at all in the other Chamber. I have none. I would certainly hope that their Lordships will give

a Bill of such considerable national and international significance the fair and untwisted debate that it has not received in this House.

Mr. Fernyhough: On the basis of what the hon. Gentleman just said, do I take it that had he been in the House in 1972 he would not have supported the Government steamrollering through our entry into the EEC?

Mr. Rathbone: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. It was for that reason that I voted against the guillotine motion on this Bill.

Sir Anthony Boyle: I hope that my hon. Friend realises that his speech is a tragedy for the Tory Party, because when we win the next General Election my hope is that my hon. Friend will be made a Minister. Unfortunately, I doubt whether any leader of the Conservative Party could make him a Minister because he would not be able to introduce a guillotine for a future Tory Government in view of the remarks that he has made this evening.

Mr. Rathbone: My hon. Friend reads the situation absolutely correctly. I would not be very happy about supporting any guillotine on a Conservative legislative matter. I hope that more Back Benchers will stand up in this House and take exactly that stand.
This touches upon an extremely important point. As long as hon. Members on either side accept dictation from the Government Front Bench—irrespective of who is sitting on that Front Bench, because that is the Bench that matters—we shall not have the answerability of the Executive to this legislative body.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend also agree that if the last Tory Administration had not bashed through so much legislation, much of it under guillotine, we might have a Tory Administration at the present time?

Mr. Rathbone: I think that I have been led too far away from the subject under discussion and I shall resist the temptation to go into that point.
One further way in which the debate has been twisted in this House, and in Committee, is that much of it has been based on drawing a spurious relationship between, on the one hand, the needs of


Westminster Government—and the means of election to this House of Commons—and, on the other hand, the best method of elections to a quite different body—the European Assembly.
The European Assembly differs from Parliament in two very important and precise ways which were touched on by the hon. Member for Newham, South. First, it is deliberative, not executive, and second, it is consultative, not legislative, in character. Since it does not constitute a legislature, nor provide a Government, it can be argued that it does not require the same sort of representation as this House requires. It could equally be argued that representatives going to that Assembly do not have to draw their strength from the same constituency responsibilities as hon. Members of this House do.

Mr. Gould: If, as the hon. Gentleman says, the Assembly will not exercise any of the functions of government—it is neither executive nor legislative—how is it that simply electing representatives to it will democratise anything at all?

Mr. Rathbone: That is an extremely simple question to answer. Surely if we switch from an appointive method of putting anybody anywhere to an elective method of putting anybody anywhere, we democratise the process—[An HON. MEMBER: "Even putting them in prison."]—even the process of putting them in prison.
Not only does the European Assembly differ from the British Parliament in its character and role, but it differs also because it is new. In its present form, with appointed Members, it has existed for little more than 20 years, compared with our own Parliament which I especially am proud to say can trace its history back to the Battle of Lewes in 1264—700 years ago.

Mr. John Ellis: Who won?

Mr. Rathbone: Simon of Montfort won and set up this Parliament on the basis of his victory.
The new Assembly is not necessarily best served by the distinctive British electoral system, which has developed gradually—some would say too gradually—over the past century and a half in a

quite different way from all European democratic methods.
It is not sufficient to argue that our established and familiar British method of elections is crucial to the success of elections in Britain to the new European Assembly Nor is it fair to say that anything else would be new and confusing—new, perhaps, depending on which alternative might have been chosen or might still be considered to first past the post but certainly not confusing. I suggest that it would not be confusing because we have seen that people in this country have already been perfectly capable of adapting to more proportionate methods of election than first past the post, such as have been introduced in Northern Ireland.
Furthermore, if we look abroad, we see that there are a large number of countries which have adopted new proportionate systems for their national elections and found them to be well understood and operated quite easily by, let me suggest, an electorate which is far less sophisticated than our own.
What is more, new systems especially for European elections—systems quite different from the national electoral systems—have already been adopted by other European countries with no concern that they will confuse or be misunderstood by the electorates in those countries.
The argument has been advanced during our debates on this Bill that there is no need to change from first past the post until a pan-European system of elections is agreed. But continued use of first past the post in Britain would leave Britain as odd man out in Europe and undoubtedly further away from the eventual pan-European system than any other country.
The additional-Member system, for instance, which was suggested in amendments which I, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and others put down but which were not called in Committee, would have been a useful and educative first step—a halfway house—towards a pan-European system. I believe that the learning from that could have been applied with benefit to whatever pressure we brought on the eventual choice of the electoral system for all of Europe.
Of course, it is impossible to assess the consequences of any electoral system, be it first past the post or a more proportionate system or specifically the additional-Member system, but surely it is imperative that distorted results be avoided so far as possible.
There is a point of principle here. The first-past-the-post system of elections which exists in this Bill makes it extremely difficult for smaller parties to obtain representation unless their support is locally concentrated, such as one might find in Scotland or in Wales. Therefore, the nationally based minority parties would be sadly under-represented while the regional and local nationalist parties might be over-represented. I suggest that distorted misrepresentation for all the United Kingdom could—and I believe would—cast doubt on the validity of the total result to a degree even greater than our own national election results in 1974.
In addition, there is a point of practice in that first-past-the-post elections tend to magnify swings in electoral opinion in terms of seats won and lost. This magnification would be found to be all the more marked in the larger constituencies choosing 81 European Assembly Members than in the 635 constituencies in which Westminster Members of Parliament are elected. At present that would work to the advantage of the Conservative Party and the disadvantage of the Labour Party. At another time it could work the opposite way. It provides the horrifying prospect of too strong a Socialist representation of the United Kingdom in Europe, doing Socialist deeds there that this country does not want.
This has been borne out by an interesting Nuffield study which shows that there is an inherent Labour Party advantage in the first-past-the-post European constituency, however the boundaries may be drawn by the Boundary Commission.

Mr. Eric Ogden: That is a bit of good news.

Mr. Rathbone: If that is good news, I do not want to be the messenger. In the European Assembly it is more important than in the national Parliament to have true representation of national political configurations. To have individuals misrepresented is bad enough, but to have a nation misrepresented could be extremely dangerous.

Mr. John Ellis: I understood that this Chamber would still represent this nation. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) is making a very interesting speech, but he has not yet defined what these people will do when they get to the European Parliament.

Mr. Rathbone: I would not think of embarking on such a definition, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule it out of order.
On all counts the choice between the first-past-the-post system, a more proportionate system in general or an additional-Member system in particular should go to the last of these. Whatever the drawbacks—and every electoral system has its drawbacks—the more proportionate system would ensure that all substantial minority parties were represented. A more proportionate system would make it more likely that there would be reasonable party representation from all parts of the United Kingdom. It would reduce, and might even eliminate, the possibility of one party sweeping the field in a region, or across the nation. A more proportionate system holds none of the dangers of weakness from party fragmentation which is associated by some with any form of proportional representation, because the European Assembly is deliberative and not executive in character.
A more proportionate system is a step towards a fairer method of electing representatives, and fairness is neither relative nor irrelevant. Fairness in the end is to be found in each individual's belief in the rights of other individuals. Relevancy is to be found in our democratic system where nothing is more important than the equal right to the equally valuable vote.
Our national interest and the greater European interest is best served by having European elections, and having them as soon as possible. These elections would best represent the good common sense of the British electorate through a proportionate system. It is a shame that the Bill as it stands does not allow us simultaneously to vote for these three principles.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Jay: I am sorry that the Home Secretary has left the Chamber, because I did not find his speech one of the most lucid that I have heard from a senior


Minister. I understood him to say that the Government propose to exclude from the Boundary Commission procedure the normal local inquiries at which objections can be heard. If he did say that, it is exceedingly regrettable. It is not clear to me from reading the Bill that the possibility of holding such inquiries is excluded. If the object is simply to save time, now that we know that there will be no direct elections before 1979 anyway, what is the justification for such haste?
I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) that, for the same reason, it is deplorable that the Bill has been guillotined to the extent it has. It is a peculiarly indefensible guillotine—all the more so because there is now no rush or hurry about moving to direct elections. As a result, there are many essential points in the Bill that we have not discussed at all.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of them and I shall give only one example, namely, the threat of an increase in the powers of the Assembly. The straightforward way to handle that would have been for this House to do what the French Parliament did and as we on the Labour Benches suggested. This would have meant enacting in the Bill the provision that it would cease to be valid if the Assembly's power were materially increased. But the Government did not do that. Instead, they provided merely that a new Act of Parliament would be necessary if the power were increased by treaty or international agreement. Until we know what constitutes an international agreement for this purpose, we do not know what this means or what the Bill says.
When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was asked for the definition of "international agreement" for this purpose he did not answer. He did not even pretend to know the answer. He said that we would be informed later—and we never have been. Owing to the guillotine we have never been able to press that question again. That does not seem to me to be a proper way to treat the House on a constitutional matter of this kind. Nor do I find convincing—here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—the explanation of the increase

in power which might be achieved under Article 235 and by the use of the budget, which has been given in a lengthy letter published in Hansard and written by the Minister of State, Foreign and Common-wealth Office. My inference from that letter was that it looked as though an increase in the powers could be achieved in this way.
Only yesterday a leader appeared in The Times on this matter, which I quote:
A new directly elected parliament will be a powerful force in its own right.
That does not encourage very much belief in the suggestion that there is to be no increase in powers. Meanwhile, it seems to me—this is another point we have not been able to discuss, because of the guillotine—to become more absurd every month to embark on these direct elections immediately before three new applicant countries join the Common Market—Greece, Spain and Portugal. As soon as they join, the whole omelette will have to be re-scrambled and the number of Members presumably adjusted to accommodate three countries with quite significant populations.
I understand that the negotiations with Greece are expected to be completed in the present year. Incidentally, I hope that the Government will resist the anti-European efforts of the Commission to exclude Spain and Portugal from the EEC by rather underhand methods. Since the direct elections cannot come about until 1979 anyway, and since by then Greece is likely to become a member, surely if we press on before that time it will only cause confusion.

Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of my right hon. Friend's evident keenness that Greece, Spain and Portugal should become members of the EEC, may I take it that he has no wish to see Britain withdraw from the Common Market?

Mr. Jay: No, my hon. Friend may do no such thing. I shall be coming to the question of withdrawal later, because I see the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) in the Chamber. As long as we are members, I hope that Greece, Spain and Portugal will also become members.
Other delays are likely to occur, anyway. We are told that the French,


with the characteristic insularity and non-Communautaire spirit which we all associate with the French, have agreed with Luxembourg to block direct elections unless plans for the Assembly to meet in Brussels are cancelled. This is not an invention of mine. The Financial Times stated categorically this week:
France and Luxembourg have made a secret pact to block the European direct elections unless the Parliament
—that is, the Strasbourg Parliament—
revises its plan to expand its facilities in Brussels. The agreement was reached at a meeting
—presumably a secret meeting, as it is a secret plan—
in Paris between President Giscard d'Estaing of France and M. Thorn, the Luxembourg Premier, on February 2nd.
The Government should tell us whether this report is true before we are asked to proceed with the Bill. It is possible that the Government know some secrets. If they do, they should not withhold them from us.

Mr. Dykes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after 2nd February the French Government officially denied that anything of that sort had taken place?

Mr. Jay: I am glad to have that denial from the hon. Gentleman, but I should find it even more convincing if we could have it from the Government Front Bench. We should have this information before agreeing to the Third Reading. If we get no answer from the Government, I shall assume that there must be some truth in the report.

Mr. John Mendelson: I know that my right hon. Friend will not want to be unfair, but for the first time in all our long debates he has approached unfairness. How can he blame an innocent British Minister when it is known that the President of France would be last of all in informing any British Minister about his secrets?

Mr. Jay: I hope that I was not being unfair. I was merely asking whether the Government could tell us whether the report is true.
On the question of this alleged secret, I should like to ask whether, if it is entirely within the harmonising spirit of European unity, and so on, for the French to say that they will block direct elections

until the Strasbourg hotel owners are fully satisfied, it is not equally legitimate and harmonious for the British Government to say that they will delay direct elections until the British fishermen are satisfied. Surely our fishermen have as many rights as hotel keepers in Strasbourg.
I press this question partly because of the welcome appearance of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham in this debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, rather like Banquo's ghost, has been making intermittent but silent appearances in the Chamber. I have always believed that there was no more of a fully paid-up Euro-fanatic than the right hon. and learned Gentleman After all, he was responsible for rushing the signing of the fatal Treaty of Accession in January 1972 without any attempt to amend the common fisheries policy.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: We did amend the common fisheries policy in Articles 102 and 103 of the Treaty of Accession. It was to those aspects that I drew the attention of the European Assembly.

Mr. Jay: I must say that no one has noticed the right hon. and learned Gentleman's amendments so far. If he thinks that there has been adequate amendment, he should speak to those who are working in the fishing industry.
Apart from that, The Times Strasbourg correspondent, none other than Mr. David Wood, who, if not a Euro-fanatic, is a Euro-acolyte—he swings the incense, as it were—reported on Monday of this week—we should get to the truth of this also—that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now so incensed by the common fisheries policy, in spite of the amendments, that if need be he will take action that will lead to the break-up of the EEC.
I hope that it is in order to quote Mr. David Wood. He reported:
Mr Geoffrey Rippon, who negotiated Britain's entry into the EEC in 1972–73, is prepared to launch a campaign for the breakup of the Community and the creation of a trading merger between the EEC and EFTA as a substitute.
To be fair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he has now slightly amended his proposals. I gather that he did so


in a telegram to the Young Conservatives at Hexham, which seems rather a strange way of making his views known. However, the revised version is reported in today's edition of The Times. The report reads:
if the Nine could not solve problems like enlargement and fisheries, they would drift to disaster and the Community would break up.
If applicant countries".
—it seems that I was not being wholly irrelevant—
like Spain, Portugal and Greece were to be rejected, 'we would all be thrown back at least into the creation of a new and enlarged EFTA'".
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that that was not what he advocated. However, he seemed to think that it might happen if concessions were not made.
I am not in favour of breaking up the EEC, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is or is not. I have never been in favour of that. I am merely in favour of the United Kingdom being liberated and joining what the right hon. and learned Gentleman calls "a new and enlarged EFTA". I wish that he had thought of all this before, in 1972. However, as he has thought of it now, and as enlightenment seems to be spreading, I ask myself again whether we need to press on with the Bill at the present rate.
At this stage Mr. Roy Jenkins has joined in the debate. He has been all too briefly quoted so far tonight. In the past 10 days he has given the healthy warning of what direct elections would mean. Only on Tuesday of this week he told the Assembly that the Commission, of which he is the well-paid President, would do all that it could to ensure that direct elections are fought on "major European issues".
Apparently, therefore, the Commission is proposing to join in the election campaign, and it seems that, far from making the EEC more democratic, direct elections are likely to become a device to enable the bureaucratic Commission to control the Assembly.
That is not quite all that Mr. Jenkins said. According to The Times—that is the report I am quoting—he said:
The Commission must be ready to give, especially to Euro-Parliamentarians, an even

more thoroughgoing justification of Brussels policies.
Thus, far from being a sleepy old watchdog, the Assembly seems likely to become Mr. Jenkins' poodle, if we take those statements at face value.
Seriously, if there is to be lavish public expenditure—after all, some of this public money is our public money—by the Commission on election propaganda, as Mr. Jenkins almost explicitly proposes, it seems that there is a risk that these direct elections will become not just an unnecessary but a somewhat disreputable procedure altogether.
For all those reasons and the many more which could be given—I hope that we shall have some answers from Ministers—it seems to me that no case has yet been made out for the Bill, and absolutely none for pressing it forward without adequate discussion and before the new member countries have joined the Community.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Marten: Often in these debates I have been called to speak immediately after the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), and nearly always the same things happen. He uses half what I have had to say, leaving me with only the other half.
I must start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) for his kind and generous remarks from the Opposition Front Bench. It was very good of him.
I have been opposing Britain's membership of the Community now, I think, for 17 years altogether. I was rather underground about it for two years when I was a junior Minister and I could not really do it overground—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—one can work inside—but after I emerged from that position I became overground and was able to play my full part in trying to stop us from taking a very foolish step.

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Marten: Not just now—a bit later. During all that time, I have found it an interesting study in both politics and in people. I do not believe that I have lost a lot of friends—I hope not—and I have certainly made a lot of friends in all parts of the House, which is very nice.
I come now to the question of the Boundary Commission. I hope that the


Minister of State will talk to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the holding of inquiries. I regard this as extremely important. As someone said, they have not been excluded from the Bill. They are there. He can hold them. In my view, he should hold them, because, if he does not, people will be deeply suspicious about why he is not holding them.
There is no hurry now. There is plenty of time to hold the Boundary Commission inquiries, especially as it is obvious now that next year the membership of Greece will be so near that it will not be worth going ahead until Greece joins.
I should emphasise once again that the Leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and the chairman of my party have both said that they want these inquiries into the Boundary Commission's report. As I say, I hope that the Home Secretary will look at the matter again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) referred, as did the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, to the Commission intefering in the elections. Notice has been given that that is what it proposes to do. I am sure that many hon. Members take great exception to the fact that the Commission's civil servants—they are civil servants, paid civil servants, however much they may try to be politicians—should seek to come and interfere in elections in this country. They should keep out of them. If not, it will be another example of their complete failure to understand the mentality of people in this country. We would not like such interference. It would damage the Common Market even more than it is damaged at the moment.
One of the joys of the Order Paper today is the motion that
On Third Reading of the European Assembly Elections Bill, to move, That the Question be not put forthwith.
That is in the names of a number of right hon. and hon. Members—for example, my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw) and for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). There is a nice mixture. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North and the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), Newham, South (Mr.

Spearing), Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) have signed the motion, together with the Opposition Front Bench. It is a great pleasure to me that the Opposition Front Bench do not want this Third Reading. They want to delay the Bill and drag their feet. Now we really know.

Mr. Douglas Hurd: My hon. Friend is in a very jovial mood, but that is a poor argument. He knows that this is a technical motion. It is required to enable us to have a Third Reading debate and for him to make the speech that he is now making.

Mr. Marten: I realise that. My hon. Friend realises that I was pulling his leg, but I am glad that he rose to it. Had he had a quiet word with me to the effect "Will my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), with some of his hon. Friends, put down this motion to save the Opposition Front Bench some embarrassment by having their name on the record as wishing to delay Third Reading of the Bill?", I should have been only too delighted to do so.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has heavily criticised the Leader of the House for bringing forward the guillotine motion. I do not wish to add to what he said. It was a very painful moment in this Parliament when he made his criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. However, I wish to criticise the Opposition Front Bench and many of my colleagues who voted for the guillotine motion. It is not the duty of the Opposition to vote for guillotine motions. I think that they could have voted against it on the basis that two days was not sufficient for the Committee stage and that it should have been four days. That would have been perfectly reasonable. There would have: been nothing un-European about it. We know that with two more days the Bill would certainly have got through in tine for the 1979 elections.

Mr. Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman able to quote any precedent of an Opposition officially voting in favour of a guillotine motion introduced by any Government?

Mr. Marten: My knowledge of history does not go back far enough to quote such an example.
The Opposition Front Bench, by voting for the guillotine motion, played out the excellent amendments which they had on today's Order Paper—Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. They were guillotined, so the Opposition were hoist with their own petard.
We must now rely upon the House of Lords to fulfil its function as a second revising Chamber. Many amendments were not debated because of the guillotine—thanks to too many Members voting for it—so the other place will have to deal with those many amendments. I recall that the European Communities Bill in 1972 went through the other place like a flash. There were very few amendments and hardly any discussion. The Lords bowed down and said "This is glorious" and sent it back. There were no amendments, so there was no Report stage. If they fail this time, with a major constitutional Bill, to take up the points that were cut out because of this vicious guillotine, the House of Lords can, rightly, be condemned. I think that we should all watch carefully what the House of Lords does. It is curious, after all this talk for so many months about the Government dragging their feet and how great was the enthusiasm on the Conservative Benches for the Bill, that these Opposition Benches should be so empty.
We were not dragging our feet at all in this country, because we have discovered that other countries are even further behind us. There was the criticism that our country was dragging its feet when the criticism should have been addressed to the other four countries who were doing the same thing, or even worse. Now we know that France and Luxembourg will veto the act of putting into operation these direct eletcions until they have sorted out the question where the Assembly is to meet. There is Brussels, which is the equivalent of the Whitehall in this country. The Luxembourg people will apparently want the Assembly to be in Luxembourg. The French will presumably want it to be in Strasbourg, which is equivalent to putting the Assembly down in Taunton with Whitehall where it is. That is not very sensible. That is about the distance involved.
Anybody who is interested in the Common Market—many of us are, for different reasons—must come to the con-

clusion that the Assembly ought to be in Brussels. There is no doubt about it. The French will find it hard to get the Assembly in Strasbourg and the people of Luxembourg will find it hard to have the Assembly there. It will be a long time before these elections take place. I am certain about that. There is no hurry about the elections. Therefore, I come back to the point about there being plenty of time to hold inquiries with the Boundary Commission.
We have also to settle—we have had a debate on this subject today—the salaries and taxation of the Members of the European Assembly. By then it will be running so late that everybody will say that it makes sense to wait for Greece to join the EEC. It would be terrible if we had our direct elections a few months before Greece joined, and then the French, for example, vetoed the entry of the Greeks for some obscure reason to do with fisheries, or something like that. That is how the Community works.
We have not worked out any basis of co-ordination between the Members of the European Assembly and the Members of Parliament. The Members of the European Assembly will presumably, if they are directly elected, go off to Europe and there will be no contact with this place. Some believe that they ought to be allowed to come here and speak but not vote. Somebody wisely asked, if there are peers who are MEAs, shall we have peers with the right to speak in the House of Commons? I do not think that we want that. We have not devoted our attention to the point about the contact between the political parties in this Chamber and the MEAs. That is a very important point.

Sir Anthony Meyer: We are always deeply interested in the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury on European questions. We know the constructive approach that he aways takes. Will he give us his views on how best membership of the Assembly could be reconciled with the need for contact with this House?

Mr. Marten: I shall come to that in my concluding remarks. My immediate answer, off-the-cuff, would be not to have this Bill and not to have direct elections.
We have not yet looked at the cost of this project. The capital cost of the


Parliament building which will be put up in Luxembourg is apparently about £60 million. It will be put up by the Luxembourgers, but the rent will be £6 million a year. There will be an increase in the number of translators and interpreters. The cost will be terrific. I do not think that we have sufficiently discussed this important point. My hon. Friends argue that we must have direct elections to make the Community more democratic.

Mr. Dykes: Hear, hear.

Mr. Marten: Let me give my hon. Friend an example concerning democracy in the Assembly. If a motion comes before the Assembly to the effect that North Sea oil should become the common property of the Community, I reckon that the majority of Members of the Assembly would vote in favour. The British Members would be in a minority. Are my right hon. and hon. Friends prepared to accept the democratic decision of the Assembly? If they are not prepared to do so, their argument about democracy is humbug.
If the powers of this Assembly are to be increased, it will try to gain legislative powers. That has been said time and again by those in the Common Market. Let me put a proposition to the House. I speak as a Conservative, but the argument could be reversed. We might have a European Assembly dominated by Socialists with a strong Euro-Communist element. The legislation which they produced would follow the general philosophy of their parties. The electorate in this country, for good reason, might return a Conservative Government who would want to follow Conservative policies. That Government might well find themselves blocked by the superior legislation passed in Europe. This is exactly the sort of dangerous position to which the Bill will lead. If there is not to be any increase in the powers of the Assembly, I cannot see why we need the Bill and why we want to go from 190 Members to 400 Members.
May I refer to the remarks made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) somewhere in the Common Market the other day? I do not know where or when they were made. I have, as you, Mr. Speaker, say on certain days, for greater accuracy obtained a copy of the transcript of the BBC interview which my

right hon. and learned Friend gave on the "World at One" yesterday. He said:
The comments which I am quoted as making related specifically to a meeting I am attending in Madrid next Tuesday in which I wish to convey to Spain and to the other applicant countries how deeply, for political as well as economic reasons, we desire their entry into the Community.
With that I would agree, as would the right lion. Member for Battersea, North. My right hon. and learned Friend went on:
If, which I do not expect to happen, the Community were to reject those applications, then, and only then, do I say the Community's coherence would be at risk. We might, perhaps, then have to consider—it would not be satisfactory—the establishment of something in the nature of a larger European free trade area. I want to see a wider, deeper, European unity and I was trying to warn about the dangers that face Europe today … my view is that if the Community as it now exits fails to find solutions for problems like enlargement in fisheries then its whole coherence would automatically have been undermined. It would virtually have destroyed itself. We would have, therefore, all of us, to seek new solutions.
That is almost exactly what I said in the pamphlet that was advertised by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham is beginning to think along the right lines.

Mr. Rippon: I remind my hon. Friend, who has attended all these debates, that that is almost exactly what I said on 15th December 1971. As my hon. Friend has promised to send me a free copy of his pamphlet, I promise to send him and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) free copies of my speeches.

Mr. Marten: I think that I have almost all my right hon. and learned Friend's speeches stored away for later reference as the Community develops.
I agree with much of what was said by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, because the Community is not working. That must now be generally accepted, and I think that a sense of Euro-boredom is pervading the hole country. Mr. Roy Jenkins went to that Commission as a new broom. He was going to jazz up the whole thing, and my gosh he was going to be popular, but what did he do? He spent a year thinking out what to do that would put a


rocket under the Commission, and he came up with economic and monetary union. Can one imagine anything more designed to increase Euro-boredom than that dead duck? I think that the Community will break up, and that when Spain, Portugal and Greece join it, the pressure will be great. It is not working now, and I do not see how it can possible continue in being.
A certain habit has grown up amongst the European countries of working together. Do we want to lose all that? I do not think that we do. Quite a lot of good has come out of that. We have to try to stop the Community from actually breaking up but to change its structure.
If someone is going along in a motor coach with 100 people and he is told that the coach will take a left fork at a road junction, and that as he travels along that road, which is the right one, he will pass a farm on the left, a church on the right and a crematorium on the left again, but as he travels on and on, and sees no sign of a farm, a church or a crematorium, he begins to scratch his head and think that perhaps the coach is on the wrong road.
He might then stop the coach and have a referendum amongst the 100 passengers. According to the latest opinion poll, 53 per cent. would say that it was the wrong road, and 35 per cent. would say that it was the right road. I should not vote to turn the bus round and go back to where the bus forked and thus get on the right road. I should go on a little further and look for the right turning that took me on to the right road. That is my view of the Community today.
We have to look ahead, because I want a wider Europe. People often talk about Europe when they mean not Europe but the Common Market. I am a great European, and I do not mean this little suburban inward-looking grouping. I want a wider Europe, from Finland down to Portugal, and Turkey as well.
To be positive the Community must abandon its federal aims and I urge the Conservative Opposition officially to come out, as the Labour Party has done, and say that they are against the development of the Common Market into a federal Europe. Once that is done, countries such as Norway which did not join because of the federal implication, Austria and perhaps Switzerland, too, will join. I urge my party to make that declaration loud and clear, and thus to get all Europe co-operating.
I would reduce the Commission to a mere secretariat and give it no legislative functions. I would take those out of it. I would scrap the CAP, which is the biggest disaster that has ever been cooked up by a bunch of fifth-form schoolboys, and have a national agricultural policy.
If the Assembly is elected—which God forbid—I should merge it with the Council of Europe and let them both have the same sort of non-legislative but consultative function. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rogers) will agree with that. As a true European, which I am and always have been, who wants unity amongst the various nation States, I believe that that is the way ahead, and what is more that Britin must give the lead, because nobody else will if we do not.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Fernyhough: We are discussing the Bill precisely because the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and others in 1971 looked into their crystal ball and thought that going into Europe would be the answer to all our economic problems. The thought that there was a dynamic market for us to join and that as a consequence we should overcome our balance of payments problems, the weakness of sterling and every other problem from which the country suffered.
We also heard that we had to join the EEC for the same reason as the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) gave tonight—in order to influence. Members of my own party used that argument in 1971 and 1972. I remember saying to Roy Jenkins in the Parliamentary Labour Party "If we can be influential by getting in, why don't we all join the Tory Party tonight and influence it to stop doing the things we do not like it doing?" I have never understood the idea that one will be influential when one will obviously be in a substantial minority.
I say to the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) that there are few constituents more articulate than mine. There are few Members who keep in closer touch with their constituents than I do. I have received one letter about direct elections for Europe. It was from the one member of the Liberal Party who I happen to know in Jarrow, a genuine Liberal. He wrote saying that he would like my views on proportional representation, and I gave them to him in a long letter explaining why I could not see eye to eye with him on the way in which elections to Europe should be conducted, because I did not believe in the Bill.
Just 12 months ago we were having difficulties with the other place about a Bill which was far more important to the economic well-being and democracy of Britain than this Bill. I refer to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, which the other place tried to murder. The other place wanted to crucify it. It would have strangled that Bill at birth. We had to make it clear that, although we would reluctantly let the other place have a small victory, we would retain most of the principles in that Bill.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And then give the ships away.

Mr. Fernyhough: When we have done as much for British shipbuilding as we have for British farming, I shall let the hon. Lady make an interruption of that kind. The late Aneurin Bevan said that there were only two ways of dealing with farmers. One was to bribe them and the other was to shoot them, and he said that we had tried bribing them.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the productivity and strike-free record of agriculture compare more than favourably with that of any other industry, particularly shipbuilding?

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the hon. Lady aware that no industry has had more public lolly since the end of the war than farming?

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Rubbish!

Mr. Fernyhough: I do not know whether I am older than the hon. Lady, but my hearing is quite as good as hers and she has no need to shout at me. I may have defects, physical and mental, but in that respect I have no handicap.
What kind of programme are the candidates in these direct elections going to fight on? For example, let us assume that Mr. Roy Jenkins and Sir Christopher Soames were candidates. What would be the difference between them? Would there be any major difference of policy that either of them would pursue? The fact that one was in the Labour Party and the other in the Tory Party made not an iota of difference to them. There could not be a major difference of policy, because the European Assembly is purposeless and useless and has nothing to do with Britain's problems. Roy is finding out, as Sir Christopher did before him, that he has as much influence in Europe as I would have in a churchyard talking to the dead.
Let us look at the enthusiasm or the Common Market. At Question Time today, not a single hon. Member opposite who took part did not attack the Community because of its attitude to the Milk Marketing Board, or to the Potato Marketing Board, or to the livestock industry.


In their Questions Opposition Members all attacked and ridiculed the Community.
I hope that we shall not have to go through the paraphernalia of these direct elections. I am looking forward immensely to seeing whether the House of Lords, that custodian of the rights of the British people when the House of Commons has gone mad, does its duty on this occasion as it has never done it before and, instead of finishing at 7.30 p.m., debates the issue long into the night so that the interests of the British people are safeguarded against those who have been, as it were, taken in by the flash of light that has come from the Common Market but who found that, instead of a blazing torch bringing warmth and comfort, it is about as powerful as a little flashlight.
History is going to be on my side. It does not matter what one's political system may be; it does not matter what association one has; at the end of the day Britain's democracy, prosperity and influence depend on the British people. It is not possible for us to be saved from outside. We can be saved only from within. It is by our efforts, our energies and our endeavours that we shall save Britain, and if we do not do it, no one else will do it for us.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Thorpe: I echo the eloquent peroration of the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) by saying that of course the British people will save themselves through their own exertions. But, occasionally, we do get help from outside—the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, for example. Without the IMF, the situation in this country today would have been very different. If the right hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that this country can isolate itself from the world, I disagree. If he says that, in the final analysis, it is the will of the country to save itself, no one will disagree. I do not think that there is any difference between us. If I have misrepresented him, I happily give way.

Mr. Fernyhough: We were never isolated. We had the Commonwealth. We were associated with hundreds of millions

of people. They have been far more loyal to us than the Community has. We have had a trade deficit of £10,000 million since we went into the Common Market.

Mr. Thorpe: There is still the Commonwealth. There are still those countries that wish to remain in association in that way. Indeed, most of the developing countries of the Commonwealth are benefiting very substantially from advantages that come to them as a result of the Lomé Convention, which is one of the most exciting developments within the Common Market area. The richer industrialised nations of the world have signed agreements with over 50 nations, as a result of which they have free trading facilities into the Common Market. They also have access to the various development funds. We ought not to overlook what has been achieved in that respect.
I was delighted to see the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) doing his stuff. When he talked about the bus going in this direction and that direction, his speech reminded me of the epitaph.
Here lies the body of Amelia White Who signalled to the left and turned to the right.
It summarises the hon. Gentleman's speech. He says that he is a good European and then at the last minute he lurches away at the first major experiment in co-operation in Europe.
My main reason for rising is to say that my initial reactions about the interpretation of the Bill were incorrect and the Home Secretary was right. I hope that I am a reasonably good enough lawyer to discover it for myself. That being so, I have even greater cause for disquiet about the procedure for the Boundary Commission, to which I shall refer in a moment.
I do not want to go over old grounds with the Tory Front Bench, but since the Tories have again sought to change the record, let me say that I have always taken the view that one reason why we shall not be having elections in June 1978, as scheduled, is the delay of the Government in introducing legislation. That I concede. But I make it absolutely plain that the Tory Party had in its hands on 13th December, by voting for the regional list system, to ensure that we could have elections by June this year.
It could have been done in the following way. We could have had polling day on 30th June, which is not an unreasonable assumption. There could have been a six-weeks' campaign, which would have meant starting the campaign on 14th May. If Royal Assent had been received by the middle of March, which was by no means impossible, that would have given eight weeks for preparation and six weeks for campaigning—a total of 14 weeks. It could have been done even earlier than that. Royal Assent could have been at the beginning of March if we had taken one or two of the Opposition's Supply Days.
It is totally wrong for the Tory Opposition to pretend that the way they voted on 13th December last year had no effect upon the timetable. Had they opted for the system that the Government were proposing, we could have had elections in June 1978, but they preferred to put their prejudices first and European elections second.

Mr. Hurd: This is history but, as the right hon. Gentleman repeated the point, I must say that it really is nonsense, because it leaves totally out of account the failure of the Home Secretary on the day in question, 13th December. He was constantly prompted by the Opposition Front Bench and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to give an assurance that he would arrange the Government's timetable to fulfil precisely the timetable which the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has sketched. It was quite clear from the Home Secretary's behaviour that he had no authority to give any such assurance. In the absence of such an assurance, the point rehearsed by the right hon. Gentleman collapses totally.

Mr. Thorpe: That is about as special a piece of pleading as I have heard for a long time. I have looked up Hansard, and I was also here. Is it seriously suggested by the Tory Party that if the Home Secretary had said "Yes, I will tell you tonight that we will have a guillotine and tell you the number of days to be allocated", the Tory Party would have said "Hooray, now we will change our minds on the regional list system and vote for it, because we can then have the elections in June 1978"? Even a whale would find that suggestion difficult to swallow.
I have raised this issue merely because the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) sought once again to re-write the record, and I do not believe that it should be re-written.

Sir John Rodgers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, not in the coming election but in the one after it, we are bound, as I understand it, to adopt a common policy for electing the Assembly? What we were concerned about on the Conservative side was why it was thought necessary to put up a system which may commend itself to the Liberals but certainly did not commend itself to the Conservatives before we had the common system which the Europeans were due to display to us in four years' time from now. Why should we accept from a little Liberal Party of no real significance that we should adopt this system which it thinks is so grand?

Mr. Thorpe: I am delighted at the care and democratic respect which the hon. Gentleman, as always, shows for minorities. It suits him well.
The important point is that it was the Government's recommendation. It was not our recommendation. We happened to be in favour of the single transferable vote, which is the system in Northern Ireland. But we happened to think that it was a better system than the first-past-the-post system and we felt that it was a system that would enable us to have elections in time.
I well remember being interrupted by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) who asked whether I would put aside my preference for that system and vote for the one that would get elections first. That is precisely what I did. That is precisely what the Tory Party did not do.
We are saddled with the first-past-the-post system. Naturally, that is a decision of the House of Commons. But I am very disturbed that we are saddled with option B.
I mentioned last time what the official Conservative view was on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, in submitting evidence for the Conservative Party to the Select Committee, said:
The Party feels it essential that there should be opportunities for local inquiries which would give only an extra three months".


Indeed, he was quite right. The difference between options A and B is 30 weeks as to 18 weeks, a difference of 12 weeks. I happen to believe that we should have inquiries for the reasons that I shall mention.
Paragraph 4 of Part III of Schedule 1 of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949, which is referred to in this Bill, states:
A Commission may, if they think fit, cause a local inquiry to be held in respect of any constituency or constituencies.
But this Act—the Home Secretary was out when I said that my initial interpretation was wrong and his was correct—applies only to supplementary reports. The only occasion when there can be a local inquiry is when the Boundary Commissioners are in breach of the obligations conferred upon them by paragraph 9(a) of Part II of Schedule 2 of the Bill, which states:
each Assembly constituency shall consist of an area that includes two or more parliamentary constituencies;
So in the unlikely event that the Commissioners come up with one parliamentary constituency equalling one Assembly constituency, there can be an inquiry. Paragraph 9(b) states:
no parliamentary constituency shall be included partly in one Assembly constituency and partly in another.
Therefore, if an existing Westminster constituency were chopped in half or in three parts, there could be an inquiry.
What the right hon. Gentleman has specifically excluded from the purview of an inquiry is paragraph 10 of Part II, which states:
The electorate of an Assembly constituency in Great Britain shall be as near the electoral quota as is reasonably practicable having regard, where appropriate, to special geographical consideration.
That is a consideration which could be very important. I think, for example, of the Highlands of Scotland, or densely crowded areas in the Midlands where local opinion might well find the united support of all the political parties in the area in question. But there can be no local inquiry into this matter, because it comes under paragraph 10 and not paragraph 9. What the Home Secretary is saying is that representations may be made in writing, but that except in the very

exceptional case of a breach taking place—as in paragraph 9—there will be no inquiry at all.
We have had an earlier debate on the emoluments of Members of the European Assembly. I happen to think that this is a much more important issue, because what we are doing is bunching together five, six, seven or eight different Westminster parliamentary constituencies. Under the first-past-the-post system, depending on the combination of permutations that one selects, one could get very different results.
For example, if we take Leeds and divide the area up east to west, we could obtain one result. But if we divide the line north to south we could get quite a different result. This is an occasion when the electorate, or the parliamentary parties, or the individual elector, should have the right to make representations and to be heard at an inquiry.
When we are saying, in effect, that it is only a matter of 12 weeks' difference, I cannot think that the speed required now that we are not having these elections probably next year is of the essence. If we have option A, on the assumption that we get Royal Assent on 15th March, there is no reason why the procedures should not be concluded by the end of October, and that should be time enough. Certainly there will not be an election for Europe in October, and I believe that we should have that additional 12 weeks for the necessary boundary inquiries.
I urge this on the Secretary of State, because to say that the Boundary Commissioners will decide upon the bunching of existing Westminster constituencies and all that the public will be able to do is to make written representations, without the right of a public inquiry, is not in the tradition of our Representation of the People Acts.

Mr. Lee: If we do not get the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking from the Minister, will he try to get his Liberal peers to vote amendments into the Bill so as to bring this matter back to the House again, so that it may be more properly considered in a way not permitted by the guillotine?

Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Gentleman tempts me greatly. But I have no mandate. I am not my brother's keeper.


It is an idea that tempts me, and it has been well noted—and not merely that, but the irony of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) in pressing Opposition peers to take effective action in another place.
It could be done by a very simple amendment—simply by adding "para 10" to "para 9" and extending the provisions of Section 4 of the 1949 Act to apply so that it was not only supplementary reports but ordinary inquiries which could be called for. That is a practical matter which we might ask another place to consider.
Having raised, with some apologies to the House, what is a technical matter, I repeat that the principle is clear. I am asking that there should be a proper right to hold inquiries if there is a demand for them, and that right for which I am asking will take only another 12 weeks—call it 15 weeks. I believe that this is well worth doing.
For me, this is an exciting new development. I have always wanted Britain to be part of the Common Market, and I believe that, if we are to have a European Assembly, it is better that it should be elected that that it should be appointed. It stimulates interest amongst the electorate to a greater extent if there is to be an election. It will stimulate interest among the political parties if they have to find candidates. This is one of the reasons why there is something to be said for party politics in local government, because the various political parties feel compelled to find the best candidates they can so that their parties are represented, they hope, by elected councillors at the end of the day.
There are matters which have to be discussed in Europe, such as the common agricultural policy. I want to see a major extension of the Lomé agreements which are, I think, a dramatic breakthrough in trading and investment relationships between the developing and the developed countries. There will be many issues that will cross the frontiers of countries, such as regional development. I do not happen to think that economic and monetary union is as far in the future as the hon. Member for Banbury suggests. What better forum than the European Assembly and, if we are to have an Assembly, why should not it be elected?
At long last we have this Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will give sympathetic consideration to the matters that I have raised and, if there is not time for it to be dealt with in this House, perhaps we can see what can be done with it elsewhere.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. MacFarquhar: I shall not take up what the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said about his dispute over the past few months with the Tory Front Bench, nor his detailed remarks on the question of objections to the new constituencies. I say only that I agreed wholeheartedly with a number of his comments at the end, especially his desire to see the Lomé Convention extended greatly. I am sure that this is an issue that will be taken up by the Euro parliamentarians.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) is not here, because I want to take up one aspect of his pamphlet. If I remember correctly, he said in the pamphlet that there were three supreme powers of a sovereign legislature. These are the power to legislate, lax and conclude treaties. These are all very well, but there is one power that is not listed in this catalogue—the power to make war. This is the main reason why the antagonism of my hon. Friends to the whole idea of supranationality is so ill-placed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) declared himself an internationalist. So are we all, in some sense of the term. Internationalism means between nations, and it is always between nations that wars are fought.

Mr. Powell: What about civil war?

Mr. MacFarquhar: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) mentions civil wars, but we are not dealing with them at present. We are dealing with relations among nations.

Mr. Powell: It is argued that international wars are banished by combining nations. But then one substitutes civil war for international war. One does not banish war thereby.

Mr. MacFarquhar: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's logic escapes him for once—may be more than once. It is never possible to rule out civil war.


I concede that readily. But the fact that one substitutes supranationality for nations does not mean that of necessity there will be civil war. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me on that.
The fact is that the most devastating wars have been those between nations. Of course, the first devastating war of modern times was the American Civil War, but since then wars between nations have been the most devastating.
In the search to find a solution to that problem of international war, the founders of the European movement tried to get together to prevent it in Europe, where war had been most devastating. It ill behoves my hon. Friends to wish to see the end of war between nations, but at the same time to pour scorn on an attempt originally designed to erode the possibility of war between European nations. We in Europe must lead the way because, regrettably, we led the way in launching wars in the past.
In this discussion of European elections there has been a certain amount of cynicism—I say that with hesitation—on the part of those who oppose both direct elections and the whole idea of European unity under the Common Market banner. These right hon. and hon. Members say that we must admit Greece, Spain and Portugal. I am very much in favour of the admission of Spain and Portugal. I have some doubts about the admission of Greece immediately. I have no doubts about it in the long term, but I think that we are proceeding too fast. It is the height of illogicality for my right hon. and hon. Friends who are opponents of the Common Market and want Britain to get out to call for the extension of that organisation. It is like saying "Come on in, the water is cold, but we are getting out." That is the height of cynicism. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in the Chamber. Perhaps he could explain his view about the extension of the EEC.
I agree with the opponents of the Bill that, despite the fact it is a slim Bill now that certain items have been dropped from it, it is an important and crucial Bill in the constitutional history of this country, along with similar Bills being passed in other Parliaments in the Community. This is a time bomb that will

be ticking in Europe for many years to come.
I agree with the opponents of the legislation that the democratic mandate conferred on the Assembly by direct elections will be a most powerful aphrodisiac. There is no question but that Members elected to the European Assembly will be inspired by love for power. No elected member of any Parliament in the world is elected without his possessing a desire to increase the powers originally conferred on him. I believe that the Members of a directly elected European Assembly will feel that they have a right and duty to increase their range of power.
I am not as sure as are the Bill's opponents about how long this process of increasing power will take; nor am I as sure as they are that it will be an unbroken process. I think that there will be many twists and turns in the forked roads of which the hon. Member for Banbury spoke, but I hope that the bus will still be heading in the same direction.
I think that the Government are wrong to hide the fact that Europe is headed on a certain course that will lead to an increase in the powers of the democratically elected Parliament, but they are right to say that it will take a long time. This Bill is merely the first step on that long road, but I welcome it as a first step.

10.42 p.m.

Sir Anthony Royle: I do not think that I am qualified to follow the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) on the road of aphrodisiacs.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Bad luck!

Sir A. Royle: Perhaps it is bad luck. The hon. Gentleman covered the ground more skilfully than I can.
I should like, however, to comment on the remarks of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). He made a statesmanlike speech, in view of the bitter disappointment he must have felt arising from the fact that the Bill does not include the sort of system for election he wishes to see. We welcome his strong commitment and support for the Bill, despite the fact that it does not include the proportional system that would benefit the Liberal Party.
But I wish to cross swords with the right hon. Gentleman on his comments


about the attitude on the Conservative Benches and among the majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends towards the dragging of feet by the Government on the Bill as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman knows, because we sat together for long hours on the Select Committee in the summer of 1976, that this Bill could have been introduced in the autumn of 1976. Indeed, the Select Committee recommended that it should be introduced at that time. We have seen from the swift way in which the Government have tackled the Bill since Christmas that, once they had made up their minds the Bill could have been introduced in October 1976, and we could have been in this situation in January-February 1977. We would then have had plenty of time to have elections—whether by PR or first past the post—to meet the deadline of June 1978. I do not think the Conservative Opposition can be accused of dragging their feet and of causing delay by our vote last December. All of us who are pleased that the Third Reading has been reached join opponents of the Bill in their surprise that we should have reached this stage so soon. I doubt whether any hon. Member would have forecast on 1st December or 1st January that the Third Reading debate would be held on 16th February. The reason that we have reached this stage so quickly is the guillotine and the Government could have brought in a guillotine if they had moved on the Bill 12 months ago. The Home Secretary is shaking his head, but that could have been done.
I was much amused by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. I have been in the House for the 17 years that he has been making speeches against the Community: in the early days of 1971 on the Bill to take us in, during the referendum campaign, and on this Bill. I am happy to feel that, on each occasion, he has failed.

Mr. Marten: We are winning now.

Sir A. Royle: I look forward to the moment when my hon. Friend and his few supporters on this side of the House and many supporters opposite will cease opposing every new development in the Community and will start working within the Community. For good or bad, we are members. [HON. MEMBERS: "For bad."] Some hon. Members think that it

is for bad, but the nation voted in the referendum to stay in, the House has voted on countless occasions for us to stay in, and, on this Bill, hon. Members have voted for us to play a greater part in the Community by directly electing our representatives in the European Parliament. I hope that the time has come when perhaps the majority of hon. Members have taken a view against the Community in the past will now reconsider their attitude.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend tell us what, in his opinion, we are committed to for the future? Are we committed to economic and monetary union?

Sir A. Royie: I am not discussing economic and monetary union. As far as I know, we are not committed to that. We are discussing a Bill to enable us directly to elect our representatives to the European Parliament. That has nothing to do with European economic and monetary union. Whether that will come is a matter for this House and future Governments. It is not a matter for us on this Third Reading.
The style and manner of the Government's attitude towards Europe over the past four years has been regrettable. Most hon. Members realise that the image in Europe of the Government's time in office is one of a period of wasted time. The attitude of Ministers—not just the Home Secretary—is one of dragging their feet and being unwilling to play an enthusiastic part in Europe.

Mr. Heffer: What about the right hon. and learned Member for Hexharn (Mr. Rippon)?

Sir A. Royle: I am talking about Ministers. I was in office with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) and was able to give some assistance to him in the negotiations for Britain's entry.
Since the referendum, when the country decided by a large majority to stay in, the Government have dragged their feet. The time has come for them to change their style and try to display as attitude in public—in Europe and in this country—of enthusiasm for the Community. In so doing, they will have more influence on the development of the Community and that is to Britain's advantage.

Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how he can be so enthusiastic


when his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham was saying the other day, according to The Times, that he was about to try to break up the Community?

Sir A. Royle: If the hon. Gentleman had spent the evening in the Chamber, as I have, or if he had sat in here half an hour ago, he would have heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham explain that what he has said in the past few days is precisely what he said in December 1971.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is joking.

Sir A. Royle: No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend will defend himself when he winds up the debate on behalf of the Opposition. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to come into the Chamber at this time in the evening, intervene and ask questions that were answered only a short while ago.
I was saying that on Europe there is a need for the British Government's image to change. I hope that when the Bill is given a Third Reading the general insensitivity to the needs of the Community and to British interests within the Community will change. I hope that when the Bill returns to this place, having gone to another place, we shall be in a position to strengthen the economic unity of the Community, which I consider to be most important.

Mr. Budgen: Ah!

Sir A. Royle: That is the next move. I hope that we shall then unite Europe's strength in world affairs. That is the second crucial area on which none of us has concentrated enough. Lastly, we shall strengthen our influence in Europe through the election to the European Parliament of direct representatives of the people of this country. I am delighted to see and feel that we shall achieve that by giving the Bill a Third Reading tonight.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: It is my contention that this is a bad Bill that should not be given a Third Reading. It has been a good debate, in which the opponents have been more clear in their view of the future

than the few disparate voices that have spoken in its support.
In many respects the Bill is lacking. We are setting up a procdure for sending men to the European Parliament. We should consider what they are to do and their purpose in being there. Surely we should find in the Bill a contract of employment or a job specification.
When a job specification is set out, pay is usually included. We all know that that is to be decided in future. There should be no difficulty getting people to go to the European Parliament, because we all know that the pay will be good. One thing that we can be sure about is that anything to do with the European Assembly, the Commission, or anything else, is expensive. The pay should not be so bad.
The next item that is normally to be found in a job specification is the place of work. If a person is to do something, it is best if he knows where he is to do it. We have heard during the debate about secret pacts and talks between various nations. We are told that they will not be going anywhere at any time if Parliament is not in a certain place. Surely that is a good reason for not giving the Bill a Third Reading. It seems that we do not know where the European Members are to go.
Another item that is normally found in a job specification is information making it clear to whom one is responsible. In this instance that is fairly easy. As there is to be an election, the Member will be responsible to those who elected him. That does not seem too bad. However, who is responsible to the Member? In that area we have the gravest difficulties. My hon. Friend and Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) let the cat out of the bag. It is unfortunate that he is no longer in the Chamber. My hon. Friend is a federalist and he sees the Bill as a first step. However, the Bill has been changed. It has been said that the House will keep its autonomy. It has been made clear that the House will remain the sovereign body. The answer to the question "Who is responsible to the Members of the Assembly?" is "No one at all."
The next question in a job specification is what these people will be doing. We should be concerned about what


they will be doing if the Bill goes forward. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Belper let the cat out of the bag. He said that they would be seeking to establish their influence to add to their powers. As with all politicians, that is what we must fear. Because they are directly elected, they will say "We want a hand in the game". There must inevitably be a clash between them and us.
There is another important omission that makes that proposition absolutely and we have not talked about it, but there has been an oblique reference to it tonight. Assembly Members will have no contact with us whatsoever. There was a suggestion that they might sit in the House of Lords or that they might come here. I do know that would be achieved. That has proved a difficult issue to resolve, and no one, refers to it now.
As the new Assemblymen will be directly elected, they will feel they have some mandate. This matter has been spelt out to us today. Ministers will come to this sovereign Parliament and, relying on their authority according to the vote of the democratic Assembly, will seek to get proposals put through the House, or the remit will not follow. We were told that was where the real power lay. If so, the people to whom we are seeking to give the job of Assemblymen will have no reason for existence. They will have no job except to sit to those of representatives at the Council of Europe. At least, their position is spelt out there.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) gave us his idea how Europe ought to develop. His description was clear and precise. I agree with him 100 per cent.
I do no believe that in any way, shape or fashion we shall achieve what we are aiming for if we give the Bill a Third Reading tonight. We shall go no dong what we have done so many times in the past with regard to Common Market matters, Of course, A few of us, night after night, discuss the orders to find out what they mean and what their impact will be. Indeed, we are still a sovereign Parliament, according to the definition

given this afternoon when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture was answering questions. But there was the acid test. The House decided that it wanted to devalue the green pound, but we have not been able to get acceptance of our decision. There is the reality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belper spoke with the voice of truth. He said that the Members of the European Assembly will have nothing to do, but they will seek to accrete powers to themselves until they get to the European concept that we are not English, French or anything else but Europeans with one Parliament that speaks for all. If we follow the logic of that, this place is finished. I do not believe that it should be finished. We cannot obscure that fact.
We must now say that this Bill must not be given a Third Reading. There is not even an honest ideological clash, as there should be, between ourselves and the federalists. The Front Benches have not spelt out the argument and, until they do, until they follow their own logic, we should not agree to this Bill.
As a democrat I accept that there are different points of view, whether Conservative or Labour. There are different views on the federalist concept. It is time that the House thought the matter out. There will be those who will win that argument and those who will lose it. We do not do the country any service if the argument is obscured and if we seek to muddy the waters, as has happened tonight.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Dykes: How depressing it is once again to listen to speeches such as that made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). Although he made it with great competence, one is bound to ask what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) are worried about. Although there are different opinions, such as those held by the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), involing federalistic thinking, how many times does the House have to take on board the fact that the Community is still very limited?
Although there are those, including myself, who are keen on the Community and its institutions developing in their inter-relationships, together and collectively, under a directly elected Parliament,


the Community is not federalistic in a conventional sense. It is a co-operative venture with common institutions. That is a different thing. Like other hon Members, I warmly welcome the Bill, although not, perhaps, with the same enthusiasm as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) in respect of its amended form.
I particularly regret the choice of electoral system. For a number of reasons, the regional list system was to be preferred. For practical reasons that system has not been chosen and we have a smaller Bill. I look forward to direct elections taking place as soon as possible. A key task facing the Boundary Commission under the option B procedure—which is not the best course—is to produce the European constituencies from the existing parliamentary clusters and submit them to the House for final approval and decision, after the proper representations have been made. Then, at long last, direct elections can take place.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe and others need to be reminded, in respect of earlier discussions about enlargement and other matters, that the United Kingdom took 12 years to negotiate its way into the EEC. That was the fundamental decision. Other countries now seeking entry may find that it takes somewhat longer than their optimistic expectations, particularly, perhaps, Greece and even Spain. Nevertheless, there is an almost universal expression of hope and optimism that they will join and that the Community will enlarge. That is some time ahead.
Now is the time to begin the great experiment—and of course it is an experiment. No one can say with exactitude how the Parliament will develop as time goes on. There is a range of opinion about that, but now must be the time, at long last, after all the hopes and development of the Community over 20 years, to do the vital political experiment—I use that word deliberately, but it is a respectable word in this context—of democratic elections for an institution that will wish to grow in influence and power in the future in its inter-relationship to the Council of Ministers and the Commission, but an institution that is only beginning to set out on the road.
We know how impossible the dual mandate has become. We know, too, how part-time the European Parliament is as it is constituted. We know also that, even after direct elections, it will be consultative only, with certain limited powers granted by concession by the Council of Ministers. That is the basis, and gradually we shall build from that.
I firmly believe that if the politicians energetically argue in the campaign when it starts—I should prefer this year, but presumably now next year—the real verities of direct elections, the real rationale of European elections, the real meaning of implanting the democratic element into Community institutions and direct control relating logically to national Parliaments as well, the public will respond to those impulses, those pressures, those arguments and those persuasive thoughts.
It is not true to say, even in this country, where perhaps one has a feeling occasionally that enthusiasm for the Community is less than it is in other member States, that the public as a whole are not interested in these matters. What I think is regrettable and sad—and it includes myself and others of my colleagues in the Conservative Party more recently—is that our own traditional energies in explaining arguing and defending the Community have diminished, for one reason or another, including the economic recession.
That can be overcome by the catalyst of direct elections. This Bill is long overdue. The Government delayed all last year, and they have to accept that. Now, on 16th February, the Bill is reachning its last stage in the House of Commons, save for Lords amendments, if there are to be any. I think that the House should enthusiastically welcome this legislation.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Powell: To all appearances there is a great contrast between the scene in this Chamber tonight and the scene yesterday. Last night, 550 hon. Members crowded the Chamber and went through the Lobbies. The mood of the House—a very marked and characteristic mood—was one of great tension and a sense of decision.
What had happened, as I understood it, was that hon. Members were showing that


they found themselves committed to something that the majority rejected. Over the weeks and months of debate they had been brought, in many cases reluctantly, to realise that they were being asked to accept what would be a damage, and perhaps an irreparable damage, to this House itself, and that the thing to which they seemed to be committed was something apparently unworkable, and of which no rational or satisfactory explanation had been tendered through all those hours of debate.
Paradoxically, I believe that tonight we are in a similar position, that tonight, when it is about to give a Third Reading to this guillotined Bill at its second time of asking, the House, or the majority of the House, is going to do, and is increasingly realising that it is going to do, what it does not intend. There is a similar sense of, I shall not say calamity, but of grief at what we find before us.
There is a minority in the House—and they are to be honoured for their candour—who believe that the sovereign control, that the exclusive competence to make the laws, to impose the taxes, to control the policies of this country, should pass from this House to other institutions, These hon. Members—and they sit on both sides of the House—have made no secret of their belief that that is the right course and that it holds the best prospect for the inhabitants of this country as well as for the inhabitants of other parts of Western Europe. But I do not think that they would deny that they are in a minority, perhaps in a small minority.
The great majority of hon. Members, even those who have followed through with their votes the membership of the European Community, even those who tonight will vote for the Third Reading of the Bill, would say at the same time that they have no intention of surrendering from this House the control of the House over our government, over our laws, over our society, over our economic future. They would contend that that is the last thing they intend or wish to see. They would argue that sovereignty not only remains but ought to remain with the British House of Commons.
But as the debates have proceeded it has become more and more difficult—and I believe that for more and more

hon. Members it has become impossible—still to believe that. No one has succeeded so far in making it seem even probable that when the institutions of the Community are provided with an Assembly directly elected from the peoples of the Community, and in this country directly elected by our own electorate, this House will stand in the same relationship thereafter as hitherto to the institutions of the Community and in particular to the Executive on the Treasury Bench.
When the electorate of this country has chosen its own representatives in a European Economic Community context to serve on its behalf in the Assembly of the Community, it will become more and more unrealistic for this Chamber to claim to control the legislation which the European Economic Community makes or the policies which it adopts.
One may look at it in practical terms. We have had the greatest difficulty in devising methods—and they are not satisfactory—whereby, even with an appointed Assembly in the Community, we can maintain contact—I say "contact", let alone "control"—over the decisions in which Ministers participate in the Council of Ministers. But shift the scene, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Imagine that the direct elections have taken place, that the measures brought before us have already been considered, not once but in many cases two or three times, thoroughly considered, by the representatives of the electorate of this country, elected for that purpose. Will any Government then say "Well, of course it is essential that the House of Commons should be given an hour and a half to express its opinion about these matters"? Difficult as it is now, it will become in practice impossible for this House to maintain its control over its representation in the Council of Ministers or over the actions on its behalf of the European Economic Community.
It will also be impossible in theory; for those who are elected to the European Assembly will be entitled to say to us from then onwards "You were not elected for European purposes. It is to us that your constituents look for the matters that concern the EEC." They will be entitled to say to me in South Down "If your constituents are concerned with the EEC's fisheries policies, it is to us,


who sit in the Assembly, who were elected for the purpose, that they should look." In the course of today's debates we have been hearing how these elected representatives will have to endeavour to keep in touch with their 500,000 constituents on matters for which they will represent them.
So by the very nature of our act we are making it both practically and theoretically impossile for this House to maintain its control over the doings, the legislation, the policies, the intentions, the planning, of the European Economic Community.
It may be said "Well, within certain limits that is true. Within certain limits we have to admit that this House can no longer exert control through Ministers over the European Economic Community. But then, how narrow is the field in which the Community operates". I think that this is an argument less heard nowadays than it was until recently, for nowadays one section of our population after another has become painfully and directly aware that its own livelihood and future are vitally affected by what is done and decided by the Council of Ministers, and by what is done and decided by the Commission and individual Commissioners.
This Community is not a static organisation. It will still less be a static organisation in future. It has been admitted, even vaunted, in these debates that when this Assembly, this representative body at the heart of it, is directly elected, one area after another of concern common to the countries of the Community will be taken over by the European Economic Community under the impulse of those who will say "We are the elected representatives of the people of the Community as a whole. Who shall gainsay us when we ask to involve ourselves, first in one and then in another area of policy?"
One of the most instructive parts of the truncated debate upon this Bill at the second time of asking was that, with all their good will and all their desire to write in a safeguard against uncontrolled extension of the competence of the Assembly, the Government were in the end obliged to admit that they were attempting to define the undefinable and to confine that which could not be confined. Earlier in the debate this evening, indeed,

the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) pointed out, on the authority of the Foreign Office, that in so far as formal powers were not concerned, there was little limit in practice to the possible extension of the competence which the Assembly of the Community could claim.
So we are surrendering our control, not in a permanently limited area, however important, but in an area of life and politics destined necessarily to extend indefinitely. The very nature of direct election is that it gives a dynamic; it gives an authority; it gives a claim that cannot be gained to the body that is elected. Those who in future propose these advances will be able to turn round to this House and to hon. Members of this House, in case we should object, and say "What, then, did you think you were doing when you passed a Bill to institute direct elections? You, of all people, ought to have known what an elected Assembly is about and what its claims are. When you set up another one, you must have intended the natural consequencies of your actions."
Earlier in the debate, in an exchange, I think, between the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) and the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), the assertion was made that the Assembly could gain only such powers as were ceded to it by the Council of Ministers. I am sure that that is so, technically. Likewise, this House of Commons has no powers except such as have been ceded to it by the Crown, but they are our powers now, we have taken them over the years; we have taken them because we spoke for the people, because we were the elected representatives of the people, and in the end our claim to take those powers has been irresistible. Nor have we taken them by a process that has been planned or at least initiated by the Executive. We took them by convention, by encroachment, by usage, by practices that could not be gainsaid as they grew up.
So the renunciation by this House of its rights of control on behalf of the electorate is a comprehensive as well as a deliberate renunciation.
It is a strange thing that we should be engaged in such an undertaking. The hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), whose candour and insight have illuminated these debates,


especially as he speaks from the opposite point of view, ventured, somewhat rashly, I think, to say that all elected assemblies look for means of gaining more power, of grasping power. I interjected "Except this assembly". For the strange thing is that we seem to have lived into an age when our great ambition here is to strip ourselves of our authority, to create other bodies to which we can transfer the responsibilities which were vested in us by those who elected us and by the history which has made this place.
Yesterday we were looking to sub-ordinate assemblies to which to transfer our powers. Now we are looking to an external assembly to which to transfer our powers. We are doing so by a sort of Pygmalion process of creating in our own image. But it is not a mere model into which we have to breath the breath of life; it is not some puppet that we are creating in our own image; it is something that, once we have set it up, will have its own life and power. If we are looking for an analogy, a closer analogy would be a Frankenstein, a monster, for it is a power which, once we have established it, will be independent of us, and of which the nature will be to take from us [Interruption.] Those who understand the dynamic of the Community, those who are the real pro-Europeans in this House, will not find that funny. They will understand that that is the inherent nature of this structure.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman has talked about this House stripping itself of real powers. What kind of specific powers are we stripping ourselves of through this Bill? Will he kindly address himself to the point that, in fact, all the powers that are being exercised by the European Assembly and which will be exercised by it are new powers? They have a new budget, and so forth.

Mr. Powell: I am not sure at what point—I make no complaint—the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) joined the debate, but I have spent most of my speech, which I must not much prolong, in pointing out that all the forms of control which at present we exercise in this House through the Council of Ministers over the legislation, the policies, the taxation, the plans of the Community will be weakened by the very fact of the

Assembly of the Community being directly elected, and that very soon our control will be seen to be superfluous, since there will be a direct control hence-forward available through those directly elected for the purpose over all those Community matters.
I return to the sad irony of the British House of Commons not merely being prepared to contemplate removing its own powers and endowing other bodies with them but finding itself almost nightmarishly unable to escape from the commitment.
I suppose that most of us, whether we admit it or not, wonder whether this is a process that can now be halted. We wonder whether the debate tonight, which is a valediction to the Bill, is also a requiem to the proud, sovereign, independent House of Commons. But I believe that in this House itself, and in the people whom it represents, there are still unexhausted powers of self-recovery. We see it sometimes in our own stilted and cramped debates, when suddenly something happens which, as it were, awakens us to the sense of what it is that we are doing and what we are losing.
Although no doubt those who are "for the Parliament"—that is an old-fashioned expression—will be in a minority in the Third Reading tonight, we can still live in faith and hope that we are not a minority in this country, that we are not a minority in this House, that what Parliament was will revive, and that what our country was will revive.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is in a minority in this House and is in a minority in the country. That has been demonstrated in the best possible way by the referendum for which he himself called.
The basic underlying theme of the discussions on the Bill has been how we can, within the framework of the European Economic Community, preserve the traditions and the differences of the individual member countries while at the same time moving forward to greater European unity. There is nothing wrong with dissension and argument or the defence of national interests in the Community—all nations do it provided it is


recognised that there is above all a European interest.
I do not see why I should be criticised or called a bad European because I chose to tell the other members of the Community exactly what it was that we agreed at the time of the Treaty of Accession, because I spoke of the things we omitted from the Treaty or because of the undertakings I gave to the House of Commons in December 1971. But, of course, the conclusion of all that is that I hope that, once the British point of view is understood, and we for our part understand the views of other people, there will be fair and equitable agreement, with a fair mutual balance of interests.
There is nothing anti-European about that. Having spoken in the House for more than 20 years saying that Europe must unite or perish, I have not then suddenly become anti-European. One is not an anti-European because one warns one's colleagues of the consequences if they do not take the necessary action to deal with basic issues such as fisheries—which I said in 1971 might call in question the whole coherence of the Community—or the enlargement of the Community. That is nothing for people to get excited about. All I say is that if we fail we shall be thrown back into the need to create some larger area which would in one way or another embrace Spain, Portugal and Greece, and in good time Turkey.
What we have always said in this country is that we do not want just a Europe of the Six or the Nine, or a Europe of 10 or 14 nations. We want to bring in the whole European family, and that is the basic purpose of the Treaty of Rome. We want to have every nation, on fair terms, which wishes to become a member, and we want the closest possible association with all those countries with historic neutrality, such as Switzerland and Sweden. We also want the closest possible association with those which are bound to neutrality by treaty, such as Austria and Finland. That is all I have been saying.

Mr. John Mendelson: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman—in those days when he was in charge of the negotiations—used to report one breakthrough after another from the United Kingdom's point of view, how was it that he was

so misunderstood by his partners that he now has to tell them that he meant something quite different from what they thought he meant?

Mr. Rippon: I have suffered from a certain difficulty in that the present Minister of Agriculture handles things so badly that, although there is a good British case, he fails to make it.
If I may say so, one of the reasons why the Government have got into difficulty is that they have wanted to pretend that there was some sort of renegotiation and some sort of way in which they were doing things for which the Conservative Government had not provided.
What the Minister will not do and has not done is to say "I stand firmly by the provisions of Articles 100 to 103 of the Treaty of Accession. I stand firmly by the undertakings which my predecessor in office gave in the House of Commons." [HON. MEMBERS: "Why should he?"] Because it is a British interest. That is what the right hon. Gentleman should have in mind.
What the Labour Party always has in mind is the party interest. It happens to suit the present Minister of Agriculture to give the impression that there is no agreement to defend and that he is somehow rescuing the country from a situation for which the Conservatives had made no provision. That is undermining the British case all the time. That is what I have had to complain about.

Mr. Jay: The right hon. Gentleman has just referred to Articles 100 to 103 of the Treaty of Accession. I have just looked them up, and all that they say with regard to the common fisheries policy is that the new member countries should have permission for 10 years to have exclusive fishery rights up to six miles from the coast. Is that something which the right hon. Gentleman is proud of and on which he thinks the present Minister of Agriculture should take a stand?

Mr. Rippon: That is not what the articles provide. For example, Article 102 provides:
From the sixth year after Accession at the latest, the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall determine conditions for fishing with a view to ensuring protection of the fishing grounds and conservation of the biological resources of the sea.


What is more—

Mr. Jay: rose—

Mr. Rippon: The trouble is that Labour Members such as the right hon. Gentleman do not want to be contaminated by the truth. All that I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do—I went out of my way to draw his attention to these articles—is to look precisely at the statements that I made on behalf of the Government as the Minister responsible to the House on 13th and 15th December 1971.
I set out then precisely the nature of the agreement that we reached with the Community, the steps by which we had reached it day by day, the rejection of certain proposals and the final agreement with an open review that was to take place within the 10-year period and as soon as possible. I said that we defined it as a major interest. I said that we relied—in the specific context of fisheries—on the declaration between my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and President Pompidou. We defined that as a major interest. I said at that time that, if there was not a fair, equitable and open arrangement, that would be a test not only of the credibility of the Community but of its coherence. That is all that I said yesterday.

Mr. Jay: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly misrepresenting the facts. What Article 100 says—and these words govern other articles—is that there shall be a restricted zone up to six miles from the coast. The review 10 years later merely says that after 10 years there shall be consideration of whether even that derogation should continue any longer. Those are the facts.

Mr. Rippon: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is a long and legal argument which is set out in full in the way that I have expressed it. I shall send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the speech I made yesterday in Luxembourg. The right hon. Gentleman is not reading the right article. He does not understand what it means. What is more, he has not appreciated the fact that we made no reference to limits. As I understand it, these particular articles mean that the question of limits is also an open issue. I explained that we might

well want increased limits when the review took place.
The right hon. Gentleman is doing what is so often done in this case—misleading the House and not looking at the facts. Whatever these dissensions—and they are considerable—I should have thought that a directly elected European Parliament would be exactly the forum in which to discuss them. It is there that we can all express our views to our colleagues, as friends and allies in these matters.

Mr. John Biffen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that in the forum of a directly elected Assembly he would be more successful in convincing the representatives of Denmark, the Irish Republic and France than he thinks he could be in convincing the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)?

Mr. Rippon: Happily, yes. I think that my hon. Friend will find that out in due course.
The Home Secretary indicated—this is the crux of the whole matter—that there had been an interesting discussion on the way in which we could ensure that the directly elected Parliament did not acquire additional powers without the consent of this Parliament at Westminster. I do not know that any specific provision is necessary. I do not see any difficulty about the provision that the Government have made, although it might be redrafted to improve it in some ways. The Minister of State was right when he said that it was most unlikely that the clause would give rise to legal disputes. There are other safeguards for the rights of this House.
In any event, the real distinction to be made—the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) touched on this, although I do not say that he fully understands it—is the distinction between powers and influence. The trouble is that this House has great powers but, unfortunately, not enough influence. As the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, we cannot control the Council of Ministers. But this House can control the Ministers who go to the Council on our behalf. At every stage of our negotiations I had to report back to this House. The agreements that we reached had to be approved by this


House, and happily, they were so approved.
The European Parliament, on the other hand, has little formal power—I cannot say that it will be very much increased in future by legislation—but it has a growing influence, and, therefore, there is substance in what the right hon. Member for Down, South said about a directly elected Parliament having influence and about that influence making itself increasingly felt, although I do not see it in the way that he does. But we shall be members of that Parliament and contributing to it. We show a lack of confidence about the contribution that this country is making to Europe.
The influence of the European Parliament really arises because it is consulted in advance of decisions, whether on legislation or expenditure. It has, moreover, a very effective committee system. Some of the things that are rather feared about it, and which have led to the growing influence of the European Assembly, we might ourselves adopt.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who at various times was not altogether in sympathy with the European Communities Bill, has now become almost a Lord Chancellor of the Assembly as Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee. He has himself virtually redrafted the Fifth Company Directive. What opportunity does this House have to redraft a regulation? Occasionally we find a regulation that is attacked by the Labour Party, such as the one dealing with King Edward potatoes—almost involving Royalty—which was supposed to have been introduced by Brussels but had been introduced by the Ministry of Agriculture and had been in force in Scotland for years.
As for the common fisheries policy, we had a day's debate on it last year and a day's debate yesterday, and between those debates two Members successfully and vitally altered the proposals that the Commission and the Council of Ministers are now considering. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) is Chairman of the Fisheries Sub-Committee of the Committee on Agriculture, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayreshire (Mr. Corrie) is repporteur

on the fisheries policy. When there is an agreement on the fisheries policy, as I am sure there will be, anyone analysing it will find that they have made a great contribution to its form.

Mr. Ogden: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is almost making the opposition case. If this Bill goes through, it will not be hon. Members of this House who use their influence to get these results. It will be Members of another Assembly not directly responsible to this House. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman please try to challenge the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on his own ground—the loss of sovereignty of this House? I think it is a price worth paying, but that is the theme which ought to be answered from the Opposition Front Bench as well as from the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Rippon: The European Assembly becomes a first line of democratic defence. The ultimate responsibility and sovereignty remain in this House. I think that that has been explained over and over again. That is the fact of the matter. The Assembly will have influence, and the influence that it has on events will be directly proportionate to the quality of the people elected. As the Minister of State said, that applies to this House as well.
I was very interested when the Minister said that he had sometimes been intrigued by what he could only describe as a certain lack of confidence in the House of Commons about its future role. Our future role remains in our hands, and it will be determined by the way we conduct our affairs. We should be considering how we establish an effective relationship between ourselves and the Parliament, how we could strengthen our own committee structure so that we consider things before they happen, instead of having a post mortem afterwards, and how we could so order our affairs in the way that the European Parliament does that we discussed the real issues of the day instead of wasting a great deal of time.
It would not have been possible to have a debate in the European Assembly about Members' salaries and expenses so trivial as the one that we had this afternoon—not at any level, whatever view one takes. I have asked Members of the


Assembly "Why don't you adopt the House of Commons system and not have perks? Give yourselves a mileage allowance, an allowance for living away from home, and a pension based on a salary that you have not got the guts to give yourselves."
An illustration of what I mean was given by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), who has been a very valuable Member of the European Assembly and an excellent Chairman of the Regional Affairs Committee. He pointed out on 2nd February that the day before the House had spent only an hour and a quarter discussing important transport legislation which the European Parliament had discussed 14 months before. There was nothing to stop us discussing it except our own folly and incompetence. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the European Committee of which he had been Chairman spent more hours on it than the House of Commons spent minutes.
If all these people who are so worried about what happens in the Community really wanted to discuss more issues, they could do so, and this House would provide the means of doing so. They do not do so only because, night after night, they waste their time and everyone else's endlessly putting empty buckets into empty wells and drawing up nothing.

Mr. Marten: My right hon. Friend said that the House could do it if it wanted to. How many Supply Days have the Opposition offered to give for European matters and legislation?

Mr. Rippon: How much pressure has my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) applied on that issue? It would be better if he campaigned for more time. But that is not a matter for me tonight.
I do not believe that there is any need to worry about the influence and powers of the European Parliament, provided that we in this House exercise our sovereign powers in an effective and suitable way. I hope that tonight the Bill will get the large majority that all its other processes have received.

11.46. p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): It seems almost trivial to remind the House that we are

discussing the Third Reading of the European Assembly Elections Bill and to bring us back from the rather odd ego trip on which the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has taken us. When he talks about my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, he makes one of his typically bad points. He seems to be complaining not that my right hon. Friend is representing the national interest badly but that he is doing it too well. If the right hon. and learned Member were here at Question Time, he would know that these are not the points that are urged upon my right hon. Friend by Conservative Members.
I am realistic enough to see that nothing that I say will change the minds of hon. Members whose intentions are fixed already. I intend to answer the points of the debate. Nothing devalues a debate more than a winding-up speech which does not refer to any of the points raised but simply expounds the prowess of a particular Member in the European Assembly.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised the question of the STV in Northern Ireland and the regulations. We have yet to draft these regulations for the conduct of the election. We shall take account of the suggestions made in this debate and of others that may reach us before that matter is debated. We want to see the same publicity procedures, possibly by means of a White Paper, before the regulations are laid before the House. When they are laid, they will be following the same course as the regulations for a simple majority system—by affirmative resolution.
The right hon. Member for Devon North (Mr. Thorpe) queried whether, during the passage of the Bill, we had adopted option B. He was good enough to say that the point was mistaken. I think he will now accept that the effect of paragraph 4 of the schedule is to lay down that in the first review we have adopted option B with one round of representations after the adoption of the proposals but with no inquiries. Thereafter, it the system should be retained for a second direct election, not only will option B not take place but we shall have the full parliamentry boundary procedure system as before with two rounds of inquiries. That


will happen if the system does not become common by the time of the second election. We shall be following the full parliamentary boundary procedure.
I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has still got it slighly wrong on Schedule 2 when he talks about supplementary reviews only being concerned with whether a determination has straddled a parliamentary boundary. "Supplementary reviews" refers to the case where the Boundary Commission redraws the Westminster constituencies. It must then at the same time redraw the European boundaries. It is that to which reference is made when talking about supplementary reviews.
The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the subject of option A, and it was put to him that there might be an amendment in another place. That might well be the case, but we would have to meet that situation when it arose. What we say is that in passing the Bill the House has clearly opted for option B, which involves one round of representations but no local inquiries.

Mr. Thorpe: When the Minister says that the House has clearly opted for option B, may we put it on record that there was no opportunity at all to discuss the matter in Committee?

Mr. John: I shall come to the question of what was and what was not discussed, but there should be no doubt on that matter because the debates have ranged more widely than the clauses which have been under discussion. Clearly, that has been implicit in the debates conducted in this place.
I should like to deal with the subject of timing. Some hon. Members have suggested that the Bill will have a speedy passage through the other place, but other hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), have suggested that the passage of the Bill might not be quite as formal as others have suggested.
The Government expect the Bill to be carefully considered in the other place but hope that it can proceed to Royal Assent in the course of the summer. This will enable the Boundary Commission to start option B procedures after Royal Assent to determine European election constituencies. The Commission told the

Select Committee that this procedure will take a minimum of 18 weeks. It means that the House will be unlikely to consider that aspect of the matter until into the autumn.
I wish to make a point which has been generally missed on the subject of timing—that is, the necessity for the parties to have some months to prepare for the selection and choice of candidates who are to take part in the campaign and for the campaign itself. This seems to indicate that, notwithstanding the fact that an election will not take place at the time, as initially envisaged, nevertheless with option B there will be the necessary time to allow the parties to take care in the selection of candidates, because that is what the parties in Britain would wish if these elections are to go forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) seemed to suggest that there was a gap in Clause 6. Let me reiterate what I said when that clause was introduced into the Bill. We have ensured that no treaty which provides for any increase in the powers of the European Assembly will henceforth be ratified by the United Kingdom unless approved by Act of Parliament.
It is possible to say that this does not cover every case. But what will happen if there is an accretion of influence or respectability? There is no foretelling what will happen in any situation of this nature. It may be that that influence will be greater than it is at present. From all that has been said, however, it appears that that influence will extend to matters not now subject to the control of the House. That is the point on which the Government rested and is why we moved to allay the fears of the House in this respect.
I must tell those who are axious that powers will be taken by the Assembly without an Act of Parliament, which would impinge on the powers of this House, that a Government clause has been introduced to meet this matter. Rather than that we should concentrate solely on what is not contained in the provision, I believe that there should be some recognition of the fact that the Government have responded to the wishes of the House and put into the Bill something which substantially meets the fears and wishes of the House.

Mr. Lee: I recognise that some concession has been made, but what guarantee is there that it will not be open to challenge in the Court of the Community? We may find that this provision is deemed by that court to be ultra vires.

Mr. John: The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said in earlier debates that he did not envisage that this would give rise to any legal complications. I cannot guarantee that a challenge will not come forward any more than I could guarantee as a lawyer that no person would litigate against my client on a case on which I would regard it as hopeless to litigate. We are confident that it will not give rise to legal complexities and that it will be of assistance to the House.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He should not include me among those who think that this provision has done what the House wanted. How does my hon. Friend reply to the point put time and again by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)? Does he claim that the clause will cover the possibility of elected Members of the European Parliament saying "We have to discuss this. Do not go to the Members in Westminster. We are the elected Members of the Assembly in Strasbourg"?

Mr. John: I understand that point. I was not trying to dodge it. I intended to cover it later with a couple of other points that were raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South. Clearly, it is possible that what my hon. Friend suggests may be said, but the Government and the House have the final say in matters that impinge upon this nation's affairs. Other people may say "Don't go to X or Y", but that will not enable the House to bow out of its primary duty to ensure that legislation affecting this country is scrutinised effectively in the House and that hon. Members have the opportunity of discussing it.
May I deal with the effect of the timetable motion? This was mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) in his reference to the letter sent to Lord O'Hagan. We have had full debates on Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 6, which are, in my view, the heart of the Bill as far as the theory and the principle are

concerned. Of those on which no debate has been possible, Clause 4 deals with double voting, Clause 5 with exemptions from jury service, Clause 7 with expenses in elections, Clause 8 with interpretation and Clause 9 with citation.
It is true that there has been no central separate debate on the schedules, but I believe that in the 40 hours that we have spent discussing the four clauses to which I have referred reference has been made to Schedules 1 and 2. A great deal of the principle has already been covered.

Mr. Marten: No.

Mr. John: The hon. Member for Banbury and I have sat through many hours of debate on the Bill. We must agree to differ. There is no single subject in this whole matter which has not been canvassed at least once, and, often, subjects have been covered many times.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) mentioned the question of the French President's intention to block the direct elections unless the Parliament is sited at Strasbourg. The President has not made known to us any official intention not to hold direct elections. That may be because he thinks that we are too innocent to be trusted with the information, but no official notification has been given. This is a matter for Governments to decide. At the moment, under Article 216 and the decision of 1965, Luxembourg and Strasbourg remain the provisional meeting places.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said that those of us who are not federalists but are nevertheless supporting the Bill are inexorably being drawn towards federalism. I do not believe that to support the Bill is any more to support federalism than to support devolution is to support separatism.

Mr. Skinner: How does my hon. Friend expect us to believe that in view of the fact that he was an anti-Marketeer and implied that he always would be, whereas he is now a Market man? My hon. Friend says that he is against federalism, but how can we be sure that he will not support that in the due process of time?

Mr. John: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not read the Pontypridd


Observer with the same care that I exercise. If he did so, he would know that at the time of the referendum, when I was clearly an anti-Marketeer, I sad that I would accept the result of the referendum. I am trying to carry out my duty to do that. My hon. Friend does no credit to anyone to infer that those of us who said that are denigrated for so doing.

It being Midnight, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Order [26th January], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third Time:—

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 45.

Division No 118]
AYES
[12 midnight.


Alison, Michael
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Radice, Giles


Anderson, Donald
Hayhoe, Barney
Rathbone, Tim


Armstrong, Ernest
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Rhys William, Sir Brandon


Baker, Kenneth
Hicks, Robert
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Beith A. J.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Berry, Hon Anthony
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Blaker, Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hunter, Adam
Roper, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hurd, Douglas
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bottomley, Peter
Janner, Greville
Rowlands, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
John, Brynmor
Royle, Sir Anthony


Brooke, Peter
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sainsbury, Tim


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Johnson, Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Sandelson, Neville


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sever, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Jopling, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Carter, Ray
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cartwright, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Sims, Roger


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Sinclair, Sir George


Coleman, Donald
Knox, David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Corrie, John
Lamborn, Harry
Snape, Peter


Crawshaw, Richard
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Davidson, Arthur
Luard, Evan
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stott, Roger


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Stradling Thomas, J.


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dormand, J. D.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
MacGregor, John
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Dunn, James, A.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
Maclennan, Robert
Tomlinson, John


Dykes, Hugh
Marks, Kenneth
Urwin, T. W.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


English, Michael
Mayhew, Partrick
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mills, Peter
Ward, Michael


Freud, Clement
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Watkinson, John


George, Bruce
Moyle, Roland
Weatherill, Bernard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Whitehead, Phillip


Golding, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Whitlock, William


Goodhart, Philip
Newton, Tony
Wiggin, Jerry


Graham, Ted
Normanton, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Ogden, Eric
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Osborn, John



Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hampson, Dr Keith
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Hardy, Peter
Pendry, Tom
Mr. Alf Bates.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Price, William (Rugby)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Biffen, John
Dunlop, John
Heffer, Eric S.


Bradford, Rev Robert
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Buchan, Norman
Farr, John
Lamond, James


Budgen, Nick
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Canavan, Dennis
Flannery, Martin
Lee, John


Carson, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Litterick, Tom


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McCusker, H.


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Gould, Bryan
Madden, Max




Marten, Neil
Roberts Gwilym (Cannock)
Wigley, Dafydd


Maynard, Miss Joan
Ross, William, (Londonderry)
Winterton, Nicholas


Mendelson, John
Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mikardo, Ian
Spearing, Nigel



Molyneaux, James
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLETS FOR THE NOES:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Stoddart, David
Mr. Grorge Rodgers and


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Mr. Roger Moate.


Richardson, Miss Jo

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL MARSDEN HOSPITAL (CONVICTED SOCIAL WORKER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

12.13 a.m.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: I have to tell the House that I do not approach the subject of this debate with any great relish. Unfortunately, I have no alternative but to raise this important subject because reputations are at stake and all levels of the media have produced many columns on the sentence passed at the Old Bailey, two or three weeks ago, on Mrs. Mitchell, who was the senior medical social worker at the Royal Marsden Hospital, in Sutton. In particular, about three weeks ago, there was an article in The Sunday Times by John Ball which drew attention to the serious problems surrounding this conviction.
I wish to trace the background for about 12 or 15 minutes, after which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker for two or three minutes.
The Royal Marsden Cancer Hospital has a world-wide reputation and we in Sutton are proud of its massive contribution to cancer research and care. Since the trial there has been widespread anxiety and accusations about the way in which Mrs. Mitchell, who, history shows, defrauded dying patients and their relatives of £38,000 over a period of less than two years, came to be employed in the first place, when it was shown at the trial that she had previous convictions for identical offences in National Health Service hospitals—the Royal Free and the City of London Maternity Home—in the early part of this decade.
I think it can be seen that when Mrs. Mitchell was employed in April 1974 the

Royal Marsden committee was not rigorous enough in checking her credentials and references, because this "evil and ghoulish woman", as the judge referred to her at her trial, had told the committee that she had a degree in sociology from Leeds University, among other things. That was palpably not the truth. In April 1974, as the House will be aware, all social workers were transferred to the employing local authority. In this case the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea was the employing authority, because the headquarters of the Royal Marsden group, as the Minister knows, is located there.
From then on this unhappy saga takes a different and more worrying route, and it is this that I want to consider for a few moments. If the Minister cannot acknowledge all the points that I make tonight, perhaps he can indulge in some correspondence with me and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone, because we must get to the bottom of some of the problems facing everybody involved in this case.
If firm action had been taken three years ago my constituents and others would not have been the unsuspecting victims of this wretched woman. It was evident as far back as May 1975 that Mrs. Mitchell was using her personal account to pay bills for patients convalescing at private nursing homes. One such home in my constituency is run by Councillor Stuart Walker, who, throughout the latter part of 1974 and the early part of 1975, had had a number of telephone conversations with the Royal Borough of Kensington, with a Miss Withrington, expressing his concern at what I have just said, which was that those accounts were being paid through Mrs. Mitchell's private account.
Eventually, on 5th May, in exasperation, Councillor Walker wrote to Miss Withrington at the health offices of the Kensington and Chelsea social services department, pointing out his anxiety not only that bills were late in being settled but that when they were it was from Mrs.


Mitchell's private account. Incredibly, Councillor Walker did not receive from the department an acknowledgement of that letter; instead, he received a dismissive letter from Mrs. Mitchell herself, and one can only conclude that the letters, of a highly confidential nature, that Councillor Walker wrote were passed on by the department at Kensington and Chelsea to Mrs. Mitchell in her office at the Royal Marsden Hospital.
So, on 20th May 1975, Councillor Walker wrote again, asking for a reply and he received one from a Mr. W. B. Utting, who was then director of social services at the Royal Borough and is now, I understand, director and chief social work officer at the Department of Health and Social Security. Mr. Utting replied to Councillor Walker saying, amongst other things, in paragraph 2 of his communication:
It is the current policy of the Social Services Department that no member of staff should use their own bank account in relation to the financial affairs of a client. The social workers at Marsden Hospital are now fully aware of this.
Councillor Walker, hardly surprisingly, was dissatisfied with that reply, because of the many telephone conversations that he had had over the preceding six months—between September 1974 and March 1975—before he resorted to writing letters, so he replied, on 29th May:
I note, however, that your comments refer to the current policy of the Social Security Department and my discussion with Miss Withrington some three months ago also referred to the practice adopted between September, 1974 and February, 1975 and I feel that at least some explanation should be provided regarding the matters which I raised.
I look forward to hearing from you.
A few days later he received another letter from Mrs. Mitchell. Not surprisingly, he was angry that his letters were being sent to her by someone in that department.
Councillor Walker did not receive a reply from Mr. Utting, and so on 30th June he wrote again. This time he was more fortunate in terms of the reply, but the contents of the letter must be viewed with some anxiety, because it said:

"Dear Mr. Walker,

…At your request I am writing to confirm that the financial transactions made on behalf of certain patients of the Marsden Hospital and subsequently of Chegworth

Nursing Home, have been thoroughly and professionally examined. This shows that all monies which were donated from various sources over a period of about six months were all properly forwarded and correctly accounted for.

Yours sincerely,

W. B. Utting.

Director of Social Services."

That was on 7th July.

This correspondence is very important, and I shall see that the Minister and his Department have copies of all the letters if they require them. There are other letters from which I do not have time to read. I have them all, not only from Councillor Walker but from others involved.

While all this was going on, the problems of the spring and summer of 1975 were compounded by an Ombudsman's report, published on 28th October 1975. Such reports take from at least four months to six months to prepare. The investigation must have begun some time in March 1975. It resulted from a complaint by a Mrs. Hunt, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone, who had staying with her a young French girl who, sadly, subsequently died. The girl, Mlle Francoise Gagnot required treatment at the Royal Marsden Hospital. The French social security authorities sent her a cheque for £470. The report of the Ombudsman, Sir Alan Mane goes fully into the protracted and sickening events, which demonstrate that this money, too, found its way into Mrs. Mitchell's hands. Neither the late Mlle Gagnot nor Mrs. Hunt could get the money back without an acrimonious struggle, which went on for about three months.

If they have not already read the report, I urge the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do so. In paragraph 17 Sir Alan stated his conclusion:
I find Mrs. Hunt's complaint about the handling of Miss Gagnot's money and the subsequent investigation by the hospital fully justified. I consider that the treasurer, when he received her letter of 14th March made insufficient enquiries into the case and both he and the house governor were far to ready to believe Mrs. Mitchell's version of events and to think that as the money had been repaid, after an interval of seven weeks, the whole affair should be regarded as closed. The treasurer's letters to Mrs. Hunt were offhand, gave no explanation of what had happened and gave the impression that he regarded the incident as trivial and


insignificant. For my part I think any suggestion of financial irregularity should result in an urgent investigation into the handling of funds by the member of the staff concerned.

This sets some of the background of the sickening events that occurred throughout 1975. At the time that the investigation was going on it was well known to the authorities of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea that all was not well at the Royal Marsden Hospital in this sphere. It had known that there were other cases. It must have known that it was high time somebody sat in that office and got to the bottom of precisely what was going on. In my opinion, nobody did.

I want to ask the Minister four or five questions. If he does not have time to answer them all tonight, I ask him to write to me and my hon. Friend and to the Shadow Minister for Social Services, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). I must warn him that the case cannot rest here.

First, will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that this infernal woman, Mrs. Mitchell, now in Holloway Prison, never again works in a position of authority in the health and social services? What guarantees can he give that he will acquaint all area health authorities with this woman's record when she comes out of prison? She has records going back as far as 1970. She was under suspended sentence and on probation, and nobody transmitted that information to any of the hospital authorities at the time.

Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman announce what steps he can take to improve vetting procedures for people working in this sensitive area of hospital work, which is an area of trust? The Royal Marsden Hospital prides itself on operating a trustworthy social services office, a matter which is of critical importance when one is dealing with terminal patients. The integrity and devotion of hospital workers are known to everyone, but this episode was disastrous. Had it not been for brilliant police work by Detective Sergeant Williams and Detective Constable Clark at Wallington Police Station it might be going on even now.

Thirdly, how will defrauded patients' relatives be reimbursed? The Minister must take care on this, because a letter

from his Department conflicts with the reply that he gave to a Written Question of mine on 31st January. He may want time to reflect further. I shall show him the correspondence that has come into my hands, because it is of critical importance.

I urge the Minister to hold an inquiry, endorsing the requests made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone who is hoping to catch your eye shortly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because reputations are at stake.

In this context, I must ask why there was such delay before the director of social services for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea took action.

There have been allegations of a cover-up. My judgment is that there is a cover-up. It must be gone into very thoroughly. I ask the Minister to urge on the Secretary of State the need for a public inquiry. The Minister must allay the mood of distrust which is growing fast and may well develop and thus affect a vital and integral part of hospital life in a very sensitive area. Phrases like "tip of the iceberg" are occurring in local newspapers, and statements are being made by people who worked in this area. These fears must be allayed.

I wonder why neither Mr. Utting nor Miss Withington went to the Royal Marsden after Councillor Walker had written in May and the Ombudsman had investigated.

I have a file of documents which in my opinion highlight the bureaucratic indifference and negligence which occurred throughout this squalid business. Everyone who sat through the trial will think that this is an understatement in dealing with Mrs. Mitchell, this callous and treacherous woman.

I shall leave a moment for my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone to make a request about this matter, which began with Mrs. Hunt, one of his constituents.

12.27 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) for allowing me a moment, and I congratulate him on raising this matter.
This is a deplorable case. Sick and dying people—people dying of cancer—were defrauded over months and years of considerable sums by a convicted criminal who happened to be a social worker. The sums were not trivial. They amounted to £30,000. It is disturbing that this ever occurred, and particularly that it involved someone who had two previous convictions.
The case came to me very indirectly because a constituent took up a case with the health Ombudsman, who can be approached by any citizen without going through a Member of Parliament. Only after she got the report from the Ombudsman and approached the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and was dissatisfied with her reply, did my constituent approach me and I became involved in the case. I was not then able to pursue it because police inquiries then started.
Mrs. Mitchell, this social worker, employed by Kensington and Chelsea Council but working in the Royal Marsden, was investigated by the Ombudsman in 1975. As a result of the inquiry, the conduct of certain members of the staff of the Marsden Hospital was criticised by the Ombudsman, but there was no attempt by him to follow up his criticism. That is a major point of principle that I wish to raise.
We do not know what cases the Ombudsman is taking up with our constituents. He can only report to the constituent and to the Health Minister. If the constituent is not a doughty person who will follow through the question and demand satisfaction, the matter usually runs into the sand. As a point of principle, the powers of the health Ombudsman should be extended to allow some powers of follow-up.
The second point of principle is that here was a social worker who had two previous convictions for cheating patients but no one seemed to know. Kensington did not know; the Royal Marsden did not know. The Department did not seem to know about it. This woman was employed in a position of trust, handling patients' money. The safety nets against a situation like this did not operate.
Only because I had a constituent who was awkward and said she was not satis-

fied with the replies did this case come to light, resulting in the police being called in.
I ask the Minister to answer certain specific questions arising out of the report of the Ombudsman. Did the Department know that Mrs. Mitchell had a criminal record? I have reason to believe that it did. If the Department knew, did it tell the Ombudsman? If the Ombudsman knew, did he pass that information on to the Royal Marsden, or was he not asked to pass it on?
It is clear that the Royal Marsden had no idea of the previous criminal record of Mrs. Mitchell, yet it should have been made aware of it if the Department and the Ombudsman knew. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer these questions. I do not know whether he will be able or willing to, but I have asked, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam for a full independent inquiry. My hon. Friend and I will not be satisfied if the Minister says "I will set up a departmental inquiry." Something rather more than that is needed. After all, it was the silence or inaction or indifference of the Department that really led to the previous record of Mrs. Mitchell not appearing.
This case has caused deep public anxiety. How can any of us know whether there are not more Mrs. Mitchell, acting and operating in the way that she did, in other hospitals? The hon. Gentleman cannot know. The Ombudsman cannot know. The hospitals may not know. I hope that the Minister will agree to this reasonable request for a full and public inquiry. I ask him to be forthcoming on that tonight.
I stress the two points of principle. First, we have to look at the follow-up powers of the Ombudsman. Secondly, has the Minister any ideas about the need for a register of social workers, containing information that will allow the employing authorities to know about the previous activities of anyone they may employ?

12.32 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): I can understand why the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) felt that he had to raise this


issue. He put his points clearly. First, we should study the facts of the situation.
Mrs. Mitchell was a social worker employed in the social services department of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, but she worked in the Sutton branch of the Royal Marsden Hospital. She was found guilty on 15 charges relating to offences between April 1974 and the early months of 1976, when she was dismissed from her employment. Some of the charges—which were described in court as sample ones—involved falsely obtaining money from the relatives of Royal Marsden patients, on the promise of obtaining private nursing care for the patients after their discharge from the hospital. She was sentenced to six years' imprisonment.
I have already expressed my deep regret to those who have suffered loss and distress as a result of Mrs. Mitchell's criminal action. It is deplorable and tragic that anyone should abuse a position of trust and care in this way, and all the more so in this case, since many patients discharged from the Royal Marsden into nursing homes are seriously ill. It is particularly terrible that they or their relatives should be victims of fraud in such circumstances.
Mrs. Mitchell's history is very complicated, and I have not yet been able to compile all the details, but the information so far available to me shows that she was first employed in the National Health Service, under a different name, in 1967 and 1968 with the North London Hospital Group, and sometime in 1968 she was declared bankrupt. In 1970, she was convicted of fraud in relation to her employment at North London and received an 18 months' suspended sentence. During 1971 and the first half of 1972 she was employed at New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, and then briefly at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham. She was dismissed from the latter employment because of her unsatisfactory methods of handling patients' money.
Between September 1972 and September 1973 Mrs. Mitchell worked, again as a social worker, at the Royal Free Hospital, and in March 1974 she was employed as a social worker at the Sutton branch of the Royal Marsden Hospital. She remained in that work until her suspension in April 1976 and dismissal in May. But since, as the hon. Gentleman will need no reminding, hospital social

workers were transferred to the local authority social service departments on 1st April 1974, Mrs. Mitchell became an employee of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea from that date. During the period of her employment by the borough she was convicted of fraud and put on probation. She succeeded in concealing this conviction both from her employers and from the Royal Marsden Hospital.
In 1975 the Health Service Commissioner investigated a complaint about the Royal Marsden by a friend of a patient for whom Mrs. Mitchell had undertaken to cash a cheque but who found considerable difficulty in getting her money. In October 1975 the Commissioner made a report which criticised the hospital's handling of the matter. A copy of this report was sent to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, as Mrs. Mitchell's employer. The borough held a disciplinary hearing at which she was reprimanded. It was not of course aware of her history; neither, at that time, was the Royal Marsden.
In March 1976 the hospital received a further complaint about Mrs. Mitchell's handling of money. This led it, after consultation with the borough, to call in the police, and led the borough to suspend and subsequently dismiss Mrs. Mitchell. Police inquiries led to 19 charges, to 15 of which Mrs. Mitchell pleaded guilty and on which she was convicted.
This unhappy sequence of events clearly poses some important questions, which have been rightly pointed out this evening.
I shall first deal with the important issue of compensation. Hon. Gentlemen have expressed concern, which I entirely share, that the victims of Mrs. Mitchell's depredation should receive compensation as soon as possible, particularly as they have had to wait a considerable period while the case was sub judice. I understand that the precise legal liability in this affair may take some time to sort out. However, I am glad to be able to inform the House that arrangements have been made for claims to be examined and paid, so far as they are accepted, without waiting for the legal discussions to be concluded. I understand that the hospital has already written to claimants asking them to submit up-to-date claims.
However, I ought in fairness to make two points. First, I understand that a number of Mrs. Mitchell's misdemeanours, including some of those of which she was convicted, were not attributable to her employment in the health and personal social services. Clearly, the public services cannot underwrite these. Secondly, a little time will be needed to examine the claims. Payment will be made with all possible speed but it cannot happen in the immediate future. This may seem strange in view of the time which had elapsed since the offences were committed but some of the facts and figures that came to light during the trial different from those previously available to the authorities.
Returning to the main question, the first issue is how Mrs. Mitchell came to be employed by the Royal Marsden, given her history. The normal procedure is to take up references, prior to the appointment or before confirming it. Unfortunately, the Royal Marsden omitted to do this and did not do so until nearly 18 months later, after the Health Service Commissioner had begun his investigation. When they were taken up, the references proved satisfactory, as also were those taken up by the borough early in 1975 before it promoted Mrs. Mitchell to senior social worker.
It has been asked whether the Department knew at any stage of Mrs. Mitchell's previous activities and convictions, and whether it passed on any information which it had to the authorities or to the Health Service Commissioner. It has also been suggested that an independent inquiry should be established to look, in particular, at this aspect of the problem. In 1974, when the Royal Marsden first employed Mrs. Mitchell, the Department did have some evidence suggesting that she had previously committed a misdemeanour. Efforts were made to ascertain its nature, but without success. In consequence, nothing was said to the hospital.
I have not yet been able to satisfy myself as to the adequacy of the efforts made, but I am sure the House would agree that it would have been considered improper to pass on unsubstantiated suspicions. I can also tell the House that the Health Service Commissioner made

certain inquiries of the Department in 1975, and I shall look into this.

Mr. Macfarlane: Does the Minister not agree, therefore, that this makes it even more essential that there should be a public inquiry?

Mr. Moyle: I am looking into the matter to see whether we should take these things further.
I have asked my officials to prepare for me urgently a full account of the case, including not only all necessary information from the health and local authorities concerned but details of the information that was available to the Department at the various stages, the action that was taken, and whether this conformed with normal practice in such cases. I shall write to those hon. Gentleman who have raised the matter and let me know what conclusions I have reached, including whether or not I consider that an independent inquiry would sufficiently add to our knowledge.
That matter is still open. Of course time and cost are also involved in a decision of that sort. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall go into the matter very thoroughly, and that I fully accept that we must draw all the lessons that we can from the case. There will be no cover-up.
I shall deal in a moment with one specific preventive measure which has been suggested, but I should like to make a general point first. In Mrs. Mitchell it is now clear that successive health authorities and the Royal Borough were dealing with a practised and persuasive criminal, adept at manipulating other people's financial affairs to her own profit and evading such inquiries as were made. No post of responsibility can be the subject of constant and complete supervision, and no system of checks can be entirely foolproof, but it is clearly of the greatest importance that we do all we possibly can to ensure that people such as Mrs. Mitchell are prevented from being able to worm their way into responsible positions by subterfuge.
I can assure hon. Members that I shall consider, after consultation with all the authorities concerned, what advice the Department can give, in the light of this case, to strengthen appointments procedures.
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) suggested that this kind of episode might have been avoided if there were a register of social workers akin to the medical or dental registers. Unfortunately, the issue is not so clear as that. Only a proportion of the social workers at the moment held any formal qualifications of a kind on which such a register would presumably be based. I think it is about 40 per cent.
It is the Department's policy and the wish of the social work profession and

local authorities, that the already growing proportion of properly trained social workers should increase still further and that in due course—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seventeen minutes to One o'clock.